[FIXED DB v972, Exocet Blk III only] Exocet : Visual Détection Range

[TyphoonFr]

Hi,

Why there is so much gap between the data " Visual détection range" of the missile Exocet and those of Harpoon or even a Tomahawk '[&:]'

A boat detects with "eyesball" a Exocet in 10 nm and a Harpoon or a Tomahawk has less 1nm....

[thewood1]

I'm sorry, where does it say the can detect the Exocet at 10 nm?

[TyphoonFr]

It is my 800h of game that say it to me and I had forgotten to post a save, sorry [&o]

[ComDev]

The Exocet has rocket propulsion (motor plume and smoke trail) which makes it detectable from 6.6nm side-on in the simulator, and 2.4nm head-on. Visual search sensors with zoom levels can increase the detection range.

The Harpoon and Tomahawk are both turbojet powered.

[TyphoonFr]

False good answer, the MM40 block3 also uses a turbojet engine.

And because you seems to find it normal, I propose a new test, I have to compare the Exocet with a helicopter then 2 aircrafts.[:D]

1 Exocet (560fts/30ft ASL) - detection: 11,8nm

1 B-52G (350kts/100fts) - detection 9.2nm
1 Rafale M with a EXOCET (650kts/100fts) - detection 1.9nm
1 BELL 602L Ranger (140kts/15ft ASL) - detection 1.2mn



At 10nm, your visual search sensors with zoom levels can see a missile but no see the aircraft and the helo [&:]

[thewood1]

Hold on a minute...you used the 39 as an example above didn't you? Why did you use that one? It has a rocket booster and sustainer. So are you not concerned about anything but the 40 bl. III?

[TyphoonFr]

I 've been tested with all the modeles of Exocet. Whether it is a M38 Blk1 or a M40 BlK3, there is no difference, in save files of my previous message, I use a m39 blk2 and a MM40 Blk 3.

Please Thewood, reads my previous message and look at the file,there is nothing there which shocks you .

Hold on a minute ...
At 10nm,a visual search sensor with zoom levels can see a missile but no see a B-52G There is nothing there which shocks you ????
At 3mn, a visual sensor can't see a Rafale and a helo but he sees a Exocet (rocket propulsion,motor plume and smoke trail,bla bla bla...),

I believe that it is lost cause, i give up ...
Forget this story of missile [>:]

[thewood1]

What should be "shocking" is that you come in and use the 39 as an THE example. When its explained to you why it is what it is, you now say its the 40 mk III you have an issue with. Its like you're scrambling around to find a problem.

[mikmykWS]

Just took a look. Typhoon's test file has all front aspect detections which are going to be considerably smaller. If you use the same file and present any targets larger side cross-section the detections get considerably bigger. So the Jet-rangers went from 1.2 nm to 2.1 nm. If you look at his reported values and consider what I've just said those values make sense with a front facing cross-section.

Missiles front aspects are super small and I'd really think through what you expect a crew to see and better appreciate what the devs have done to account for engines etc. I don't think there is a major to-do here and more conclusive evidence should be presented to warrant their time.
Mike

[ComDev]

Okay the Blk III has the wrong visual and IR signature flag (low-viz smoke) in the database, it is now using the same modifier as Harpoon and Tomahawk. Thanks for pointing this out.

Please note that for older Exocets it's not the missile itself that you detect, but the smoke trail.

This is similar to contrails on aircraft. A fighter aircraft cannot be spotted at 18000ft altitude from the ground, however when you get into the contrail zone it can be seen at 20-40nm.

[TyphoonFr]

Oddly enough, all the smoke has finally cleared and missiles flying at 30 feet no longer leave condensation trails...


Sorry, I rediscovered one of my old posts