Matrix Games Forums

It's really, really hard to come up with a good simulation of missile behavior, especially because historical Pk isn't everything -- it's an abstraction of everything that happens between missile launch and intercept and all the battlespace around it. Was it fired from within its DLZ? What did the EW environment look like? What aspect did the missile approach from? Does shooting two missiles at a target and having one hit count as a 100% Pk or 50%? Do missiles that malfunction or fail to guide count as misses? What about missiles that are only fired to force their targets to drop stores or to force them on the defensive?

The only thing that's really safe to conclude is that BVR missiles are good enough for everyone to constantly build and develop new ones -- otherwise, nobody would be doing it! Trying to create a decent simulation without access to classified data is very, very difficult; give the devs credit for getting as close as they (hopefully) have!

They build and develop them because they see the potential. There is little practical experience for BVR in a battle environment.

This is an interesting and sobering read on radar missile reality, especially long range missile shots...

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf

ORIGINAL: Showtime 100

It's really, really hard to come up with a good simulation of missile behavior, especially because historical Pk isn't everything -- it's an abstraction of everything that happens between missile launch and intercept and all the battlespace around it. Was it fired from within its DLZ? What did the EW environment look like? What aspect did the missile approach from? Does shooting two missiles at a target and having one hit count as a 100% Pk or 50%? Do missiles that malfunction or fail to guide count as misses? What about missiles that are only fired to force their targets to drop stores or to force them on the defensive?

The only thing that's really safe to conclude is that BVR missiles are good enough for everyone to constantly build and develop new ones -- otherwise, nobody would be doing it! Trying to create a decent simulation without access to classified data is very, very difficult; give the devs credit for getting as close as they (hopefully) have!

very good point that about historical Pk - case in point is AIM-9 expenditures in ODS.

most sidewinders were released accidentally due to hot pickle.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

This is an interesting and sobering read on radar missile reality, especially long range missile shots...

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf

Great read! Thanks.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

This is an interesting and sobering read on radar missile reality, especially long range missile shots...

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf

Did he really include two shots of the Air Tattoo Fulcrum collision and call it a Serbian Fulcrum in allied force?

He probably got the inspiration from the box cover of Jane's ATF [:D]

Most BVR missiles are intended against targets that are not likely to do much maneuvering, either because they are surprised, or they simply cannot. The AIM-54 family was designed to shoot down bombers. I think any Phoenix missiles aimed at a fighter type contact are a bonus if they hit.

Not sure if this is the best place for these but it seems somewhat on topic... I know the manual doesn't fully list this, but is anyone aware of an air weapons guide or brief. Something simple like for the f-14 the phoenix requires illuminator on and constant guidance until ... effective range...
The sparrow ...

for the f-18
The AAMRAM needs x y and z
it does not need guidance after launch and can be fired off data from other sources... ect

when I read the database I'm never certain if a missile is forgettable or if it needs guidance (particularly guidance from its launching aircraft)

well case in point, the AMRAAM can be launched without a target, but for high termination criteria it wants guidance up to when its seeker goes active (pitbull for medium PRF).

in theory it could be launched from a friendly datalink, but I am yet to see a confirmed source demonstrating a launch with a cold radar. the closest I have seen is a radar standing by, with the fighter completing an intercept then switching his radar on, guided in by a friendly datalink but still launching on his own data.

if a weapon is active radar homing, in general it needs guidance until it goes active. if a weapon is semi active radar homing, in general it requires constant guidance until termination.

Hi,

Thanks for the game. Sorry for digging this thread up, but I would like to confirm what the OP said, that there is something indeed fishy with the Irbis-E radar performance. Both latest generation Su-27SM and Su-35S seem to have terrible radar performance not only when compared to foreign fighters but also to previous generations of the Su-27 family. Aircraft I have tested along side them are Russian Su-30 and its export counterparts Su-30MKI and Su-30MKK also the Su-34 and the single seat export Su-27SKM. All of these had better radar performance detecting similar targets than the latest Su-27SM and Su-35S (IRST performance also seemed to be much better). It seemed that those last generation aircraft had only slightly better radar performance than the vintage 1980s Su-27S and were somewhat comparable to a MiG-25PD!

It is easy to test that in the editor. Just place those aircraft together and see who can detect similar targets better and at what distance. All above mentioned aircraft were detecting F-15C sized targets at 90+ nm whereas the Su-27SM and SU-35S could only do so at around 65 nm.

I am using V.1.02 build 480

picking up fighter sized targets at 90 miles is _very_ good radar performance...

ORIGINAL: thewood1

This is an interesting and sobering read on radar missile reality, especially long range missile shots...

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf

A bit narrowly focused. It did not go into the effect of being under BVR missile. Any fighter under BVR fire will still have to honor the threat. Which can break up an incoming strike, put those unit on the defensive and disrupt unit cohesion. Which in turn would enable the attacker to gain the advantage and allow any follow up attack with short range missile to be more effective. In game term. It should decrease the aircraft agility rating for every missile evaded for short time which will make follow up attack more effective (unfortunately it's not implemented in game yet).

So, despite the low kill rates. The ability to detect and fire first is still every important.

I don't think anyone doubts that, but it is specifically addressed in the report. The point is that AAW BVR kills were and are not common. Any one who comes in and claims differently is just conjecturing.

It's an almost nine year old unclassified report though that barely addresses anything post desert storm. I just realized the other day, the time between desert storm and present day is bigger than the gap between linebacker II and desert storm. Yet in my mind desert storm still feels fairly recent while linebacker II and desert storm appear to be miles apart. But it's been a long time since desert storm with a lot of technological and tactical improvements, plenty of them classified. There just hasn't been any real air to air warfare to put it into reality. He certainly makes a number of valid points, but also a bunch that are outdated, narrow minded or seems to be skewed due to a non pilot's perspective. And of course the fulcrum picture thing I mentioned earlier doesn't help for me lol

A lot depends on the type and the politics of the conflict.

ORIGINAL: Tomcat84

It's an almost nine year old unclassified report though that barely addresses anything post desert storm. I just realized the other day, the time between desert storm and present day is bigger than the gap between linebacker II and desert storm. Yet in my mind desert storm still feels fairly recent while linebacker II and desert storm appear to be miles apart. But it's been a long time since desert storm with a lot of technological and tactical improvements, plenty of them classified. There just hasn't been any real air to air warfare to put it into reality. He certainly makes a number of valid points, but also a bunch that are outdated, narrow minded or seems to be skewed due to a non pilot's perspective. And of course the fulcrum picture thing I mentioned earlier doesn't help for me lol

A lot depends on the type and the politics of the conflict.

could you be more specific on what you think is outdated, narrow minded or skewed?

Kurt Plummer? Are you out there?

Mike

I don't get it... is that a reference to something?

EDIT: So, I just googled Kurt Plummer... that guy does not have a good rep, it seems. I found a post where he bashed the Super Hornet on a modelling forum... which is bad enough for me!

however, I don't appreciate the implication that my posts are pseudo-intellectual BS - which, insofar as I could tell, his all were.

So how many wars have been fought with BVR kills since Desert Storm. So no one brings ANY real data...and then when someone brings it, complaints about it. Let's see some data on the other side, not opinions or wishful thinking about fancy technology.

Can any one dispute any data in that report. How about bringing something that refutes that?

I don't know that we have any solid data to suggest the performance is poor either. Short of a full scale, no holds barred conflict - where ROE is primarily operational rather than political - we may never have.

JD