CMO 1.05 official update BVR missile performance.

[thewood1]

Yes, I'm positive its the simulation thats the issue.

[Tcao]

I don't have data, but when my F-22s are being shot down by J-8s, I have to wonder if there is maybe, just MAYBE, a problem with the simulation?

J-8? The infamous Raptor killer?
Haha, thanks for bring my memory back to , errr, maybe 20 years ago. When the Chinese BBS had one discussion that had millions clicks , "how to use J-8 to shot down F-22"

J-8.jpg (86.01 KiB) Viewed 2367 times

[thewood1]

Just tried a bunch of contrived scenarios of a J-8 vs an F-22 and again, it wasn't even a fair fight. The J-8 gets trashed with the only warning a possible missile on radar at 7 nm. Its so ambiguous that the J-8 doesn't even bother with defensive moves.

The only way I could kill the F-22 was letting the J-8 sneak up from behind on an F-22. Even then it was close. So someone is doing something wrong somewhere.

[TBLackey]

It was in Hail Mary, F-22s had completed a mission over Hainan, RTB to Vietnam. The J-8s scrambled in proximity from a Hainan airbase, behind the F-22s. Even so, I'd have thought the F-22 just afterburner their way out, no problems whatsoever.

[thewood1]

Come on...questions?

How many
Mission settings
ROE
Opportunity targets
Postures
Load outs
Evasion settings
Path following
and a couple hundred other questions.

You come into a fairly detailed conversation and throw out a "shocking" claim with almost zero context or information. Are you just venting?

[Tcao]

We got to live with what we have

That's very unfortunate. RTB is the part that don't have a variety of doctrines setting support , RTB needs player closely monitor and micromanagement.

Like IRL, sh*t can happen. RTB groups ambushed by enemy fighters, or get into the SAM network. So, watch out their egress/RTB course , setup non-navigation zone helps. The annoying thing can still happen. For example if an enemy chase you and getting closer, better to turn on the afterburner, but sometime your A/C refuse to do so due to the safety concern calculating the remaining fuel.

I usually setup a support mission to override the safety concern. a support mission I myself named as "emergency RTB", ignore RTB when fuel is low, transition at Afterburner speed. Drag the support mission to the direction I want. If sh*t things happen, I just assign those RTB A/C to this "emergency RTB" support mission. Later unassigned them, let them RTB as normal.
of course this happened once, I totally forgot those A/C and they circled around the support mission reference point until they crashed after they depleted all the fuel.

[TBLackey]

Come on...questions?

How many
Mission settings
ROE
Opportunity targets
Postures
Load outs
Evasion settings
Path following
and a couple hundred other questions.

You come into a fairly detailed conversation and throw out a "shocking" claim with almost zero context or information. Are you just venting?

I thought this was a discussion forum. That was my contribution. I'm sorry if you don't like it.

Unfortunately I didn't do a taxonomic field analysis of these two species of aircraft at the time. Which is why I said 'I don't have data'' a few posts back.

[BDukes]

It was in Hail Mary, F-22s had completed a mission over Hainan, RTB to Vietnam. The J-8s scrambled in proximity from a Hainan airbase, behind the F-22s. Even so, I'd have thought the F-22 just afterburner their way out, no problems whatsoever.

Flight planner should solve many RTB issues.

In terms of watching stuff when a lot is going on, you can try and use some of the popup alerting - pause game functions. Granted, the new contact is probably a bit much, and weapon contact is a bit late.

If you run in editor you can due some lua stuff.

No potty breaks when the game is running either! I've lost wars due to a good healthy bm.

Mike

[thewood1]

Come on...questions?

How many
Mission settings
ROE
Opportunity targets
Postures
Load outs
Evasion settings
Path following
and a couple hundred other questions.

You come into a fairly detailed conversation and throw out a "shocking" claim with almost zero context or information. Are you just venting?

I thought this was a discussion forum. That was my contribution. I'm sorry if you don't like it.

Unfortunately I didn't do a taxonomic field analysis of these two species of aircraft at the time. Which is why I said 'I don't have data'' a few posts back.

There is discussion and then there is just ranting. You are free to rant and i'm free to call BS on it.

[TBLackey]

There is discussion and then there is just ranting. You are free to rant and i'm free to call BS on it.

Ok grandad. Do you have a lawn you'd like me to stay off of as well?

[thewood1]

Well thats quite the discussion style. I guess the maturity gap is showing.

[TBLackey]

Young whippersnappers these days have got no respect for their elders

Anyway, I'm sorry. Lets get back to BVR missiles...

[thewood1]

There is discussion and then there is just ranting. You are free to rant and i'm free to call BS on it.

Ok grandad. Do you have a lawn you'd like me to stay off of as well?

One thing that is timeless and not generation-dependent, when you're losing the debate, get personal.

[TBLackey]

There is discussion and then there is just ranting. You are free to rant and i'm free to call BS on it.

Ok grandad. Do you have a lawn you'd like me to stay off of as well?

One thing that is timeless and not generation-dependent, when you're losing the debate, get personal.

The classy thing to do would be accept an apology. Now, want to get along, or do you prefer to hold grudges?

[thewood1]

I do a little of both.

[TBLackey]

Cool bananas.

I'm playing Hail Mary again right now, if I can reproduce my Raptor/J-8 fight, I'll be sure to post something, facts and all.

[ronmexico111]

Not sure if this is exactly relevant to this particular discussion but when running a quick battle BVR engagement in 1995 with F-14D's against MIG-31's the Tomcats seem to get their ass handed to them. My question is, is it normal that a Phoenix missile has 7 seconds of fuel versus the AA-9 which has 52 seconds of fuel? The Sparrows have 4 seconds, and the Sidewinders have 1 second of fuel whilst the AA-8 has 1 second of fuel and the AA-6 has 12 seconds of fuel. Just thought I'd put this out there.

[thewood1]

I think if you read through this thread, a couple of those are addressed. I know the AIM-120 has 7-8 sec in real life and the AIM-9 has 1-2 sec. If you look at some of the charts that were built a lot of info is in there.

[ronmexico111]

Not sure if this is exactly relevant to this particular discussion but when running a quick battle BVR engagement in 1995 with F-14D's against MIG-31's the Tomcats seem to get their ass handed to them. My question is, is it normal that a Phoenix missile has 7 seconds of fuel versus the AA-9 which has 52 seconds of fuel? The Sparrows have 4 seconds, and the Sidewinders have 1 second of fuel whilst the AA-8 has 1 second of fuel and the AA-6 has 12 seconds of fuel. Just thought I'd put this out there.

I think if you read through this thread, a couple of those are addressed. I know the AIM-120 has 7-8 sec in real life and the AIM-9 has 1-2 sec. If you look at some of the charts that were built a lot of info is in there.

Yes, I found that in an engagement like that I should launch the Phoenix from at least 75% range and then close in while the MIGs are still defensive. That helped some. Of course, even with six Tomcats against 4 MIGs, I still lost 4 before shooting all the MIGS down. That Amos missile really hurts.

[Dimitris]

My question is, is it normal that a Phoenix missile has 7 seconds of fuel versus the AA-9 which has 52 seconds of fuel? The Sparrows have 4 seconds, and the Sidewinders have 1 second of fuel whilst the AA-8 has 1 second of fuel and the AA-6 has 12 seconds of fuel. Just thought I'd put this out there.

1) Read this: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 4#p5068024

2) The AA-9 doesn't loft, so it needs a lot more boost in order to reach its nominal range. Lofting drastically reduces the boost time necessary to reach a given range, for a couple of reasons.