[WAD] AAMs burn up fuel far too fast.

[Tcao]

most fighters that can will quickly push to over Mach 1 to use their (more abundant) fuel to get the missile through the sound barrier and then launch.

I was always curious how much that tactic matters in Command and how much it would help the missile range, but never actually tested it, until now Here is a save, the left F-15 flies at AB, the right one at 350 kts, both fire a Sparrow from the same distance. The left Sparrow is about 1200m ahead after a few seconds thanks to the higher launch speed.

Thanks, never notice this change until now
I tried your scenario and design a scenario myself. The shooter's speed does make a difference on Missiles energy status. And yes, current build gives this negligible advantage. For a target that is at range of 50% missile range, there is no difference. But there is a slightly difference at maximum engagement range. The AB fighter's sparrow will bleed out all the energy 3nm further compare to 350kt fighter's sparrow.

[Tcao]

As it's pretty jarring to see fighters in combat seem to outrun their own missiles. Really calls for a change in tactics.

And I am a little surprising to see very little discussion on the new missile flight model change. To me that is like a revolutionary change in CMO history. I expect people spend pages to discuss the new tactics, what is the optimized WRA setting etc.

To me, setting WRA at 50% max range is a must when the target is a fighter that has an AB and RWR. And when facing new generation fighters , only a WRA at 25% max range can guarantee a hit. New generation fighters can see incoming missiles far away with AESA radar or MAWS, then turn to the new heading runs away.

Note this is only for target that has high closure rate. If the target is receding , WRA must be reduce to very short range. Current beta build does not handle DLZ very well. I have seen a group of ROCAF F-16A MLU chasing a RTB J-11B, they fired 10x AIM-120B one after another at 15nm distance. All missiles wasted, they run out of energy.

[Gizzmoe]

Current beta build does not handle DLZ very well.

No, it's currently a mess. You said it, the WRA is a very dynamic thing, different range settings are needed for different situations, so the AI needs to be able to dynamically change that as well. How will the devs solve that? We will see

[thewood1]

Doesn't WRA already do a lot of that? There are different WRAs for multiple types of aircraft. There are also a limited number of aircraft that can detect AND outrun an AAM set at 75-80% Basically only fighters, strike aircraft and a limited number of bombers.

[bsq]

Maybe the issue is not the fuel, its the modelling of missile (aero)dynamics. Is it a case of the missiles lose speed (and therefore effectiveness) long before they reach max range?

Max range should be Max Effective Range. At that point the weapon should still be able to perform a meaningful manoeuvre (3g+). It should not have bled off so much speed that it is now going slower than the launching platform.

The other thing is the launching speed should provide a 'delta' speed to the missile. Not sure if it does or not.

[Gizzmoe]

Doesn't WRA already do a lot of that? There are different WRAs for multiple types of aircraft.

Yes, the WRA helps a lot in that regard. But lets say, for example, we have an enemy AI group of aircraft with Sparrows and we set the WRA range of them to a realistic 50% against 4th Gen, so that they don't waste too many missiles. Then this group would always fire them at 50% max, no matter what, because we told them to do so. That behaviour would make them predictable, they would never fire suppression shots, and we can exploit that. How can that be avoided? Only by good mission design and lua?

[Gizzmoe]

Maybe the issue is not the fuel, its the modelling of missile (aero)dynamics. Is it a case of the missiles lose speed (and therefore effectiveness) long before they reach max range?

In case of the Sparrow it looks ok to me. Some data:

I tested with launch speed 480 kts, 36000 ft, max range 38nm according to DB, the missile flew a straight course. The rocket motor burned out after 6.8nm, the Sparrow was at 2100 kts then. After 15nm at 1580 kts, 20nm at 1333 kts, 30nm 920kts, 35nm 547 kts.

[Tcao]

Maybe the issue is not the fuel, its the modelling of missile (aero)dynamics. Is it a case of the missiles lose speed (and therefore effectiveness) long before they reach max range?

Max range should be Max Effective Range. At that point the weapon should still be able to perform a meaningful manoeuvre (3g+). It should not have bled off so much speed that it is now going slower than the launching platform.

The other thing is the launching speed should provide a 'delta' speed to the missile. Not sure if it does or not.

People are going to argue that Max range =/= Max effective range, but I will leave this to Dev team to comment on.
Just in case Max range is Max effective range, then the missiles lose speed way before where it is supposed to be.

Untitled1.jpg (508.67 KiB) Viewed 897 times

The highlighted AIM-120-C-7's speed has reduced to 1055kt after a 17nm~20nm flight.

there were some complaints here
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 7#p5009737

I need more time to dig into this, but I would love to take a wild guess: the whole issue is about how current beta version simulate the missile lofting.

So far all the complaints are associated with AIM-120 family and PL-12/PL-15s. These two are lofting towards the target. Missile climbs to the apogee and some people saw the speed reduction, that is fine. But it looks like when the missile is diving, it does not gain speed fast enough, the potential energy doesn't convert into kinetic energy in the right manner.

it needs more testing for sure.

[Tcao]

Doesn't WRA already do a lot of that? There are different WRAs for multiple types of aircraft.

Yes, the WRA helps a lot in that regard. But lets say, for example, we have an enemy AI group of aircraft with Sparrows and we set the WRA range of them to a realistic 50% against 4th Gen, so that they don't waste too many missiles. Then this group would always fire them at 50% max, no matter what, because we told them to do so. That behaviour would make them predictable, they would never fire suppression shots, and we can exploit that. How can that be avoided? Only by good mission design and lua?

I guess this is more of scenario designer's responsibility. He/She can give a 3:1 numerical advantage. So AI with poor tactics can still hammer the player. Or slightly revise the WRA setting for some of the AI's A/C.

Right now one of my favorite tactic is change the wingmen's WRA to MAX Range, 1 round (assuming we have two aircraft flight group) while keep the flight leader's setting at 50%. So the wingmen function like a machine gunner, spray and pray, hopefully it will sucessfully supress the target A/Cs, in the meantime the leader close the range, release missile at shorter distance to finish the kill.

[boogabooga]

I just ran a test with the Quick Battle "A2A BVR Duel, 1975" with 4x Phantoms going up against 4x MiG-23s.

I've just updated these duel battles to have the ability to quickly set WRA Automatic firing range for both sides. I concur with the comments that is is really important for (both sides) to reduce that if they expect to actually get a hit; if that is actually the goal is another question. I'm using 40% of max range as the default; I find one can get a hit with that most of the time.

IMHO, the developers should consider a doctrine option for 'AAM- kinetic or practical range' just like what is done for torpedoes. That, or make the new model a scenario option.

[bsq]

Maybe the issue is not the fuel, its the modelling of missile (aero)dynamics. Is it a case of the missiles lose speed (and therefore effectiveness) long before they reach max range?

In case of the Sparrow it looks ok to me. Some data:

I tested with launch speed 480 kts, 36000 ft, max range 38nm according to DB, the missile flew a straight course. The rocket motor burned out after 6.8nm, the Sparrow was at 2100 kts then. After 15nm at 1580 kts, 20nm at 1333 kts, 30nm 920kts, 35nm 547 kts.

3 nm short of max range and its slower than most targets can do. Does not sit right if that is Max Effective. Like I said it should be able to pull a meaningful manoeuvre at max effective, but it looks like the 38nm range is max kinematic, which is a whole different thing.
Four ranges:

Max Kinematic
Max Effective
Max Doctrinal
Min

And they should all be different.

Of course, in reality, you should be firing at max doctrinal range. As you control this, you can determine, either through WRA or manually when you are going to fire. Looking at the numbers above, I would say that 'doctrinally' this one is pretty damn close to what it should be. Other missiles though, not so sure, lot of testing to be done I would hazard.

[Gizzmoe]

People are going to argue that Max range =/= Max effective range

What's to argue though? Max Range and Max Effective are two different things, Max Effective depends on the tactical situation, which opponent you face, from which aspect, speed and range. Max Range is just the theoretical max range under best circumstances.

[bsq]

Max effective has a clear definition in air combat involving speed and the ability to conduct a meaningful maneouvre at that point. It is not affected by the tactical situation, it is a distance, from launch, where it can still turn quicker than its target. If the target can out turn it, then its not 'effective'.

I know that seems open to interpretation, but honestly it's not. All AAMs and SAMs have those 4 ranges and only the Doctrinal one should change in any given system, because that's the range determined by the firer, not by the missile manufacturer.

I'll grant meaningful manoeuvre may be a bit loose as a concept, but rule of thumb would suggest that the target cannot out turn the missile at that point still (not saying it will catch it ultimately catch the target, because it is still bleeding off energy at that point).

[Gizzmoe]

Max effective has a clear definition in air combat involving speed and the ability to conduct a meaningful maneouvre at that point. It is not affected by the tactical situation, it is a distance, from launch, where it can still turn quicker than its target. If the target can out turn it, then its not 'effective'.

Yes. I can down a slow cargo plane with an old SARH from quite a distance, but I can't use that same missile effectively against a fighter that's the same distance. That's my definition of Max Effective, "can my missile hit the target in this current situation".

[Gizzmoe]

The highlighted AIM-120-C-7's speed has reduced to 1055kt after a 17nm~20nm flight.

there were some complaints here
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 7#p5009737

I need more time to dig into this, but I would love to take a wild guess: the whole issue is about how current beta version simulate the missile lofting.

In my test with B1266.1 the C-7 has a remaining speed of around 1100 kts after 20nm flying a straight course, the Sparrow is around 200 kts faster at the 20nm mark, same launch alt and speed. That seems kinda weird.

[bsq]

There is something off though with Anti Air Missiles (SAMs and AAMs).

Why did a 40N6 travel 230 nm maintaining 31000 feet and a speed of 3750kts?

Why do AIM-120s, a more aerodynamic missile, bleed off speed so much faster than AIM-7's.

How can an unpowered (post burn out) missile climb like it was powered without bleeding off speed?

Seen all these behaviours in 1266.1 - trouble is the Save File is from a huge scenario, so I will have to engineer these in a much smaller scenario.

[Gizzmoe]

Why did a 40N6 travel 230 nm maintaining 31000 feet and a speed of 3750kts?

Because it's an awesome missile! The 40N6 is indeed very weird in CMO, it has a burn time of around 4:25, which is a bit too much. That brings it, as you mentioned, to around 230 nm full-speed, plus it doesn't coast after burnout, it disappears/peters out. Can be seen in the attached scene, the missile has enough kinetic energy to intercept the fighter, but it can't.

[thewood1]

"How can an unpowered (post burn out) missile climb like it was powered without bleeding off speed?"

I have not seen that in testing 120s. Make sure to mention what model of 120 you are talking about. The D has the new motor and lofting model the Cs didn't.

edit: Sorry, it was the B that didn't loft. But the D got the new pulse rocket motor and had a higher loft capability.

[bsq]

"How can an unpowered (post burn out) missile climb like it was powered without bleeding off speed?"

I have not seen that in testing 120s. Make sure to mention what model of 120 you are talking about. The D has the new motor and lofting model the Cs didn't.

Sorry, perhaps that post was a bit misleading. The whole issue is Anti Air Missiles in general, not just AAM, but SAMs too.
A 40N6 did the first intercept. Missed a Helo at 1000 feet (120nm from launcher - dont get me started on how impossible that is), then it climbed to 2000 feet and took another helo laying buoys, which was another 15nm down range (so now its at 135nm from its launcher). At a closer range to the launcher, watched a 9M96M do something similar.

[thewood1]

I'd be interested in trying to reproduce that. Can you give me any more details on specific units, etc.?