Low AAM PK .. Oh no not that again...

I finished flying an Eagle pack and after a while got used to an AMRAAM+Sparrow routine where I fired an AMRAAM at a target (or my wingman did) then I locked and fired a Sparrow slightly ahead of my target path thus avoiding his chaff bloom and achieved a nice kill ratio.

Very few times I had to use my Sidewinder to finish the job.

Now I am back to my beloved Flanker – first time since the patch 1.1.1

Oh my.

Arghhhh.

Yucky.

R-77 are ballast.

My R-27ERs fly nowhere near anywhere – forcing me to spend another R-27R which more often than not ends AWOL so I get in my target IR AAM zone where I should not be - if he is a MiG-29A bye bye I am gone.

Over and over again high, low, parallel, frontal … low PK forcing me to dogfight when I don’t want to and should not.

I am seriously considering going back to 1.1 .

(Oh ... BTW : I developed an immunity against enemy radar guided AAM)

Welcome to realistic missile performance ;)

LOL dude there are people who say AMRAAM's are inefective, then theres other people saying R-27's are inefective. It apears to me that whats inefective its the pilot not his preferred weapon. ;)

Weapons behaviour has changed in every Version of the game, and it takes a while untill you get the hang of it and start killing again.

Welcome to realistic missile performance ;)

pffff..... too realistic. ;)

Super chaff has to be toned down.

When I see any radar guided being fired (even very close) I just turn a bit, not even loose radar lock most of the time - then release three chaff and don't even glance twice - decoyed.

If I loaded 8 R-27T and 4 R-73 on my Flanker I would bag 6-8 enemy fighters with ease. IR guided missiles are my weapon of choice over any Radar guided missile.

AMRAAM's are inefective, then theres other people saying R-27's are inefective.

low PK - nearing the point of being not an asset, but a handicap.

At close range (less than 10nm) a fighter that has lock and has a radar guided AAM in the air should burn thru ECM and chaff.

An AMRAAM - at 5nm, with lock and fired within parameters, is accelerating, has huge maneuverability and would kill anything.

Chaff should only be effective over a certain distance - as it spreads, close in it does not present a bigger reflection than a solid object.

What should decoy the missile is not the chaff per se - but the target maneuver that presents the AAM with an impossible geometry. The chaff only aids in that.

pffff..... too realistic. ;)

 

Super chaff has to be toned down.

 

When I see any radar guided being fired (even very close) I just turn a bit, not even loose radar lock most of the time - then release three chaff and don't even glance twice - decoyed.

 

 

If I loaded 8 R-27T and 4 R-73 on my Flanker I would bag 6-8 enemy fighters with ease.

You will find that shooting these from 10 miles away (maximum seeker range) is a bummer when you already have AMRAAMs on your heels from further away than that. ;)

It is a pity I am so short of time, but I'll try tomorrow to post a short track of me,my wingman and two MiG-29.

Every time, after firing 4 AAM an missing every time my wingman gets shot down.

Then I get the other MiG-29 - and get shot down by that MiG my wingman should bag.

So I have to fire an AAM first at that MiG-29 and hope that now my wingman gets him while he is trying to evade my AAM - but now , I am close, too close to that other MiG-29 , he now fires a radar guided AAM, I decoy it - but now I am inside his R-73 range with a heavy (80% fuel) lumbering Su-33.

I get sandwiched by two MiG-29 !

pffff..... too realistic. ;)

 

Super chaff has to be toned down.

 

When I see any radar guided being fired (even very close) I just turn a bit, not even loose radar lock most of the time - then release three chaff and don't even glance twice - decoyed.

 

 

If I loaded 8 R-27T and 4 R-73 on my Flanker I would bag 6-8 enemy fighters with ease. IR guided missiles are my weapon of choice over any Radar guided missile.

Yes, heat seekers traditionally have a higher Pk than radar homers ;)

low PK - nearing the point of being not an asset, but a handicap.

 

At close range (less than 10nm) a fighter that has lock and has a radar guided AAM in the air should burn thru ECM and chaff.

And you base this on what?...

An AMRAAM - at 5nm, with lock and fired within parameters, is accelerating, has huge maneuverability and would kill anything.

Sure. I mean, that's what everyone says. I've seen the real thing miss.

That's not to say that LOMAC doesn't have issues. Believe me, we know them ;)

Chaff should only be effective over a certain distance - as it spreads, close in it does not present a bigger reflection than a solid object.

... based on what? So you're saying that close in, chaff would not be a wall of noise? ;)

What should decoy the missile is not the chaff per se - but the target maneuver that presents the AAM with an impossible geometry. The chaff only aids in that.

There's no such thing as an 'impossible geometry' for AMRAAMs and R77's within the NEZ. The only thing that'll save you is distraction of the missile at a critical moment.

:)

�

 

 

At close range (less than 10nm) a fighter that has lock and has a radar guided AAM in the air should burn thru ECM and chaff.

 

And you base this on what?...

What ... if I have lock, ECM is obviously not working against me, nor is chaff - so I fire my AAM.

I should not have lock otherwise.

So I suppose that, additional chaff and hard maneuvering will degrade the missile effectiveness, but not to the point of rendering my missile completely ineffective.

Chaff is a wall of noise - but it is static in relation to a fighter.

A fighter that is trying to evade an AAM releases chaff to provide stronger echoes to the missile radar, now, as it distances from the chaff it already released, it becomes once again a stronger echo. If I have lock - and am guiding my missile, it means that that chaff is not effective.

I should loose lock before my missile goes ballistic.

If I don't - my missile should be decoyed by the target evasive actions.

And as to geometry - for a 50G Python 4 or 5 there is no such thing as a successful evasive maneuver, but for a heavy AMRAAM, R27 or even R77 there is.

After the engine has burnt out - a missile options become more and more limited, that is when it is easier to evade it.

 

What ... if I have lock, ECM is obviously not working against me, nor is chaff - so I fire my AAM.

 

I should not have lock otherwise.

Your perception of ECM is not completely correct then ...

So I suppose that, additional chaff and hard maneuvering will degrade the missile effectiveness, but not to the point of rendering my missile completely ineffective.

 

Chaff is a wall of noise - but it is static in relation to a fighter.

Doesn't really matter if it raises the noise floor above the fighter's signal ... especially if that fighter in anywhere near the notch.

A fighter that is trying to evade an AAM releases chaff to provide stronger echoes to the missile radar, now, as it distances from the chaff it already released, it becomes once again a stronger echo. If I have lock - and am guiding my missile, it means that chaff is not effective.

 

I should loose lock before my missile goes ballistic.

Your RADAR and the MISSILE's SEEKER are two entirely different things. Guess which one has less processing capability.

In addition, chaff is an -extremely- strong reflector. RIDICULOUSLY strong. The aircraft's own reflection has nothing on it.

If I don't - my missile should be decoyed by the target evasive actions.

You mean maneuvers - completely incorrect.

And as to geometry - for a 50G Python 4 or 5 there is no such thing as a successful evasive maneuver, but a heavy AMRAAM, R27 or even R77 there is.

Also completely incorrect. The AMRAAM and R77 have a terminal 12G target loading. nothing something you'll pull off in an aircraft for a significant amount of time. In addition, they have pretty lethal fuzes.

After the engine has burnt out - a missile options become more and more limited, that is when it is easier to evade it.

I think you'll find that while this is the case for Rmax launches, it isn't quite as much of an issue at about half Rmax, where if you attempt to remain offensive any maneuvering would not guarantee evasion. But that's all WAFM, which is a 1.2 thing, so ;)

Currently missiles have a seeker issue which is what's causing their close combat lock problems. Other than that ... it may interest you to know that an ARH missile can be beamed, like your own radar ;)

Yes - I can have chaff locked on. But I was thinking of a target lock scenario where the missile goes ballistic even with the fighter locked on.

Your RADAR and the MISSILE's SEEKER are two entirely different things. Guess which one has less processing capability.

For Active guided missiles yes - but a R-27/Sparrow is guided by the reflection that my Radar illuminating that target creates, chaff is decoying my Radar, not my missile. That is why I should loose lock before my missile goes ballistic.

If my target evasive action manages to break my lock - my missile goes ballistic, or, if my Radar looses lock due to chaff.

I suppose both the Flanker and Eagle can discriminate between chaff and the real target enough so as to guarantee an acceptable PK.

I noticed that Eagles like to fire simultaneously Sparrows against single targets as to maximize their chances, so of course, chances are less than ideal for a single Sparrow to hit.

But 4 AI guided R-27?

Also completely incorrect. The AMRAAM and R77 have a terminal 12G target loading. nothing something you'll pull off in an aircraft for a significant amount of time. In addition, they have pretty lethal fuzes

if it has lock - but what if it hasn't?

Currently missiles have a seeker issue which is what's causing their close combat lock problems

Unlike you guys, I can only analyze symptoms - not causes, and deduce from my own actions and from observing what I see happening.

One thing is certain, beyond visual range engagements are a ticket to close in dogfights in the Flanker, I love nasty dogfights - but not in a mission where I have a task to achieve, I want to dispatch any enemy fighters that appear in my way, and not have a 1:4 PK when a 1:2 is expected.

Yes - I can have chaff locked on. But I was thinking of a target lock scenario where the missile goes ballistic even with the fighter locked on.

Sure, that sounds exactly what I'm talking about.

Your RADAR and the MISSILE's SEEKER are two entirely different things. Guess which one has less processing capability.

 

For Active guided missiles yes - but a R-27/Sparrow is guided by the reflection that my Radar illuminating that target creates, chaff is decoying my Radar, not my missile. That is why I should loose lock before my missile goes ballistic.

The only difference between and ARH and SARH is the illuminating platform. There's no reason why the SARH missile seeker cannot lock onto the chaff instead of the aircraft. It is a SEPARATE SYSTEM. It isn't just YOUR radar that has a lock, it is a missile's seeker also. you can try to defeat either.

If my target evasive action manages to break my lock - my missile goes ballistic, or, if my Radar looses lock due to chaff.

Or if the missile locks onto the chaff (or simply loses lock due to the chaff - or it's fuze detonates due ot the chaff)

I suppose both the Flanker and Eagle can discriminate between chaff and the real target enough so as to guarantee an acceptable PK.

Real life combat records seem to disagree.

I noticed that Eagles like to fire simultaneously Sparrows against single targets as to maximize their chances, so of course, chances are less than ideal for a single Sparrow to hit.

 

But 4 AI guided R-27?

The real combat record of the R-27 has the Pk at around 5%.

Of course that conflict is also low on missile employment details.

if it has lock - but what if it hasn't?

Unlike you guys, I can only analyze symptoms - not causes, and deduce from my own actions and from observing what I see what is happening.

One thing is certain, beyond visual range engagements are a ticket to close in dogfights in the Flanker, I love nasty dogfights - but not in a mission where I have a task to achieve, I want to dispatch any enemy fighters that appear in my way, and not have a 1:4 PK when a 1:2 is expected.

Yes, heat seekers traditionally have a higher Pk than radar homers

Not since active radar homers. Nothing matches the record of the AMRAAM currently, and it is the only active radar homer currently used in combat.

Not since active radar homers. Nothing matches the record of the AMRAAM currently, and it is the only active radar homer currently used in combat.

IIRC AMRAAM's Pk AFAIK is still second to the Sidewinder.

I was really sceptical about this issue at first - as after the patch it became harder to hit with SAR missiles also (harder to maintain lock in look down anyway); but after having 2 R 77 low aspect NEZ shots trashed by chaff while they were still burning (once online, one offline) I am patiently awaiting the next patch :)

So am I - patiently awaiting the next patch.

If I recall correctly - the only conflict where Flankers and Fulcrums fired AAM was between Ethiopia and Eritrea, hardly a benchmark war.

You were right in pointing out that a radar guided AAM can lock on chaff or have its fuse detonated prematurely.

I earnestly hope the next patch restores some balance - as it stands, American AAM are less effective and Russian ones are ineffective.

I have another Eagle pack - going to fly it and wait for the patch before I go back to the Flanker.

In the game the R-73 and R-27T seems to have several orders of magnitude greater pk than the R-27ER if deployed in the same situation.

If R-27R/ER truly lose lock that easily I can't understand why they're even in service. It would be much better to just have heaters only :p

Enemy aircraft just drop some chaff, make a small evasive manuever and the missiles go ballistic... :(

If I recall correctly - the only conflict where Flankers and Fulcrums fired AAM was between Ethiopia and Eritrea, hardly a benchmark war.

7 Fulcrums were downed in the Gulf War. I would imagine at least some of them fired missles too. No hard data on that though.

Not one did ! The only confirmed kill was by a MiG-25 of an F-18, and that was confirmed years after the war.

I am very curious how the next patch will work out the PK ratio - I remember how in 1.0 the Russians had the upper hand, since then it has been slowly but surely downgraded until we one day will reach a point were the AAM will turn back and shoot you down.

The real combat record of the R-27 has the Pk at around 5%.

Voah,come on that means nothing.It should be around %70-80 in pairs with an average Russian pilot.Russians know what they're producing when it comes to aviation and surely they won't use a missile with "'%5'" pk on the plane they want it to counter F-15.

But if we're talking about monkeys in the cockpits in Africa,it's ok :)

What do you mean 'it means nothing'?

Do you have a better source?

So am I - patiently awaiting the next patch.

Better ged a chair or a bed while you wait... ;)

IIRC AMRAAM's Pk AFAIK is still second to the Sidewinder.

No, it's PK is well above the Sidewinder. The AIM-9M only performed moderately better than the AIM-7M during Desert Storm - it went 8 for 22 I think. Previous models, like in Vietnam, had worse records still.

The Israeli's might've used them more effectively (they're pretty secretive about this stuff), but even with a PK of 100% it won't be enough to pull the AIM-9L/M's PK of ~35-40% to the AMRAAM's ~65%. Neither would the Brits with their record in the Falklands

But if we're talking about monkeys in the cockpits in Africa,it's ok

The only "monkeys" piloting Flankers in Africa were Russian instructer pilots and soldiers, if that's what you're referring to. You should be more careful of what you say.

The real combat record of the R-27 has the Pk at around 5%.

The Israeli's might've used them more effectively (they're pretty secretive about this stuff

Theres a video on Patrick's site showing a buch of training and combat sequences and in one of them a Sidwinder is fired in auto mode and it "kills" a hill!

The only difference between and ARH and SARH is the illuminating platform. There's no reason why the SARH missile seeker cannot lock onto the chaff instead of the aircraft. It is a SEPARATE SYSTEM. It isn't just YOUR radar that has a lock, it is a missile's seeker also. you can try to defeat either.

 

[...]

 

Or if the missile locks onto the chaff (or simply loses lock due to the chaff - or it's fuze detonates due ot the chaff)

Sorry to come that far back, but a few thoughts on this :

Your missile seeker in a SARH is seeking the return signal coming from the target locked by the illuminator. The reason why it won't lock on a chaff without the illuminator locking on the chaff is simply that the chaff don't emit any signal. It won't lock on something it can't even "see".

Your SARH signal is locked on a "return-signal" (with specific signature), not on any object in its FoV, even less a passive object.

So to spoof a SARH, you HAVE TO spoof the emitting radar, ie radar of the launching plane.

Vs ARH, you have to spoof the missile itself, because the missile is the illuminator. In fact, in both case, you're spoofing the illuminator, forcing it to lock on the wrong thing. You can't force the missile seeker to watch "something else" than the return-signal from the illuminator, AFAIK

Well, perhaps you can, in fact. See Jane's FA-18 for this, FA-18 E seems to carry a ECM decoy built specifically for that purpose, "create" a return signal offset from the real target plane. Or perhaps they only create additionnal noise to spoof the illuminator once more, but the fact that they are used carried in the back of the plane several meters away seems to suggest that they try to force the radar/seeker to watch "the wrong thing".

Now, is the missile illuminator more prone to lock on a chaff than an aircraft illuminator, I don't know. There's a big range difference to take into consideration, ARH on-board radar locks really closer.