R-73 performance in game
-
The actual information required probably isn’t easy to come by……
Agreed, but it comes down to modeling “in game” and not how it truly operates. One does not need to know exactly how the missile works, but rather how to mimic it’s known operational abilities. Seems we could even have an “in game” AESA if we knew more about what it can do, not how it does it. I know this seems contradictory but most of the weapons systems FBMS models is classified to some degree. The Dev team doesn’t model how these weapons work, rather they model known unclassified data on the those systems.
-
Agreed, but it comes down to modeling “in game” and not how it truly operates. One does not need to know exactly how the missile works, but rather how to mimic it’s known operational abilities. Seems we could even have an “in game” AESA if we knew more about what it can do, not how it does it. I know this seems contradictory but most of the weapons systems FBMS models is classified to some degree. The Dev team doesn’t model how these weapons work, rather they model known unclassified data on the those systems.
I dont think it sounds contradictory, I think it sounds circular.
Stuff is modeled based on how to make it mimic known operational abilities because the stuff is classified to an extent. That is the complaint here - just doing more of the same isnt going to make the complaint go away…?
-
I dont think it sounds contradictory, I think it sounds circular.
Stuff is modeled based on how to make it mimic known operational abilities because the stuff is classified to an extent. That is the complaint here - just doing more of the same isnt going to make the complaint go away…?
Yep, and that isn’t going to happen. I think the values modeled are pretty good but needs some small improvements. Close to what known data we have. In fact, I don’t know if FBMS needs anymore data than it has with relations to missiles. Maybe better game operations with JDAMS and the like, but only to the point of perhaps being able to program the SAT targeting system and release procedures. Then again, that might be too sensitive to model as well. Just have to wait and see what FBMS does.
Since were on the subject of missiles, I would certainly hope to see the AIM 120D modeled. Been reading what I can on it. That missile’s got some legs!
-
Since were on the subject of missiles, I would certainly hope to see the AIM 120D modeled. Been reading what I can on it. That missile’s got some legs!
Not really
The motor is the same than a C-7, so kinematically, it wont be a game changer for most aircraft. The main improvements for range will certainly be an optimized flight profile, and a significant increase of battery time. I would guess that for a 50 000 ft, M1.5 launch like the F-22 can do, the main range limiter is not the kinematics, but rather battery/self destruct time.
Bottom line : with the F-22 it will definitely have more range, but with an F-16, probably not a lot more.
-
Not really
The motor is the same than a C-7, so kinematically, it wont be a game changer for most aircraft. The main improvements for range will certainly be an optimized flight profile, and a significant increase of battery time. I would guess that for a 50 000 ft, M1.5 launch like the F-22 can do, the main range limiter is not the kinematics, but rather battery/self destruct time.
Bottom line : with the F-22 it will definitely have more range, but with an F-16, probably not a lot more.
This is not what is being reported. The 120D reached IOC in April. Tests (from what has been unclassified) has stated that the burn time is increased (approx. 8 seconds longer). Reaching greater than MACH 1.5 “initial” (dependent of aircraft launching speeds). Ranges vary but the WEZ is certainly farther and wider with a much narrower escape envelop (NEZ). Static numbers show a greater range of between 30% and over 50%. This missile has been quietly deployed to the Airforce/Navy and now Marine squadrons since July of this year. Still no solid info but I would not expect any. This missile IS IOC ready. Initial shots against drones (Q-4), shows it’s range to be above 90nm. I would only guess that it’s range (WEZ) would be somewhere between 50 and 80nm. Far greater range than the C-7 (WEZ estimated between 35 and 50nm).
So, YES, the slammer “D” has some serious legs! Not really you say? Really I say.
-
This is not what is being reported. The 120D reached IOC in April. Tests (from what has been unclassified) has stated that the burn time is increased (approx. 8 seconds longer). Reaching greater than MACH 1.5 “initial” (dependent of aircraft launching speeds). Ranges vary but the WEZ is certainly farther and wider with a much narrower escape envelop (PkEE). Static numbers show a greater range of between 30% and over 50%. This missile has been quietly deployed to the Airforce/Navy and now Marine squadrons since July of this year. Still no solid info but I would not expect any. This missile IS IOC ready. Initial shots against drones (Q-4), shows it’s range to be above 90nm. I would only guess that it’s range (WEZ) would be somewhere between 50 and 80nm. Far greater range than the C-7 (WEZ estimated between 35 and 50nm).
So, YES, the slammer “D” has some serious legs! Not really you say? Really I say.
Where is that from please?
-
Where is that from please?
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html
http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/AMRAAM.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM
and this PDF, which I know and trust……
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2013/pdf/af/2013amraam.pdf
-
This is not what is being reported. The 120D reached IOC in April. Tests (from what has been unclassified) has stated that the burn time is increased (approx. 8 seconds longer). Reaching greater than MACH 1.5 “initial” (dependent of aircraft launching speeds). Ranges vary but the WEZ is certainly farther and wider with a much narrower escape envelop (NEZ). Static numbers show a greater range of between 30% and over 50%. This missile has been quietly deployed to the Airforce/Navy and now Marine squadrons since July of this year. Still no solid info but I would not expect any. This missile IS IOC ready. Initial shots against drones (Q-4), shows it’s range to be above 90nm. I would only guess that it’s range (WEZ) would be somewhere between 50 and 80nm. Far greater range than the C-7 (WEZ estimated between 35 and 50nm).
So, YES, the slammer “D” has some serious legs! Not really you say? Really I say.
Where can I find these values? I need source. So far I thought that 50% greater NEZ/DLZ is valid only F-22 at very high alt just the usual marketing applied on any platfrom. It is impossible with same missile frame and engine reach 50% better range considering even just the most basic autopilot and terminal gudiance options…
-
Thankyou - I have the SARs and DOTE docs but they don’t list specifics so was wondering where the figures were coming from.
The Wiki page lists some figures and puts this as the ref http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20130918/101291/HHRG-113-AS00-Wstate-GreenertUSNJ-20130918.pdf - States it is longer range but without figures. (other links are dead)
I do have this http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html but it 2007 and links to nothing to state where they were getting the info from suppose it is possible Raytheon advertised a 50% improvement years back.
This is a better page but the info it links to has no figures http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/AMRAAM.html
-
It is impossible with same missile frame and engine reach 50% better range considering even just the most basic autopilot and terminal gudiance options…
It can if the time of flight is the (very) limiting factor for range…. but that mostly concerns high speed, high altitude shots. In low altitude shots, the D will indeed fall out of the sky at the same moment as the C-7
There is only so much you can do with basic rocket propulsion anyway. This is why ramjets have been considered for BVR for a long time now - the only problem is that it is really tricky to engineer in an AA missile.
-
Thankyou - I have the SARs and DOTE docs but they don’t list specifics so was wondering where the figures were coming from.
The Wiki page lists some figures and puts this as the ref http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20130918/101291/HHRG-113-AS00-Wstate-GreenertUSNJ-20130918.pdf - States it is longer range but without figures. (other links are dead)
I do have this http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html but it 2007 and links to nothing to state where they were getting the info from suppose it is possible Raytheon advertised a 50% improvement years back.
This is a better page but the info it links to has no figures http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/AMRAAM.html
…and your not going to find much info on it. But from what has been stated (take it for what it’s worth) this missile has some serious legs. Since most information used to model what FBMS is now, like WiKi and other open source info, the “D” info seems to be pretty consistent with what’s on the Wiki with other sights. It seems to have a longer range. Just how much is not known, but estimated to be greater (at least) than the C-7. The “D” is not the same as a “C-7”. It appears to be longer and a bit wider. See pics…
and….
Compared to a C-7….
Sorry for the large links. But you can see that the “D” is a bit longer and wider than the “C-7”. At least I can see it. Also, rumor has it that the dimensions for the “D” might be available at some point in the future. Most interesting to see this already being deployed on the viper in some of these pics.
-
…and your not going to find much info on it. But from what has been stated (take it for what it’s worth) this missile has some serious legs. Since most information used to model what FBMS is now, like WiKi and other open source info, the “D” info seems to be pretty consistent with what’s on the Wiki with other sights. It seems to have a longer range. Just how much is not known, but estimated to be greater (at least) than the C-7. The “D” is not the same as a “C-7”. It appears to be longer and a bit wider. See pics…
Appreciate that - there is no information. Because of my background I totally ignore any figures without some kind of a credible source. This is actually a very good example of why Wiki is virtually irrelevant - anyone can edit the page and put any rubbish on there.
Almost imposible to tell from those photos - you want side on photos at the same angle and if you know the dimensions of the weapons bay or wingtip launchers that will give you a better idea.
-
Wikipedia is not irrelevant…
Its just not a source. It is a source for sources. The same is true of every encyclopedia ever.
-
Wikipedia is not irrelevant…
Its just not a source. It is a source for sources. The same is true of every encyclopedia ever.
Nope - other encyclopaedias have decidedly better quality control and authors that know what they are talking about.
-
You are mistaken on the quality control sir. Wikipedia has less errors per article than World Book Encyclopedia and The Encyclopedia Britannica.
In fact its a main focus for Wikipedia, precisely because of the fact that anyone can edit it. Other encyclopedias tend to take for granted that their authors know what they are talking about, and thus have less rigorous checking of articles.
-
According to who? - who has gone through every page to determine this statistic? Is it humanly possible to go through every Wiki page and is the expertise and time actually available?
Have never seen anything as bad as Wikipedia - some pages are terrible - no citations bad formatting and if you know about the subject the content is often laughable - that’s before you get on to the lack of references.
I actually have a quite a few pages I set up probably 8 years ago - but I haven’t even looked at them for about 4 years - I don’t get any notification when someone decides to change them.
Anyone can and does edit the article - have seen it so many times - they clearly have not got the required number of staff to control the content and even then they don’t have people who are experts in every subject in human history.
There are some good articles - but here is the point the majority of people take the information at face value regardless (they dont check the sources)- but it is open to and is abused by all manner of people for whatever reason.
-
…. anyone can edit the page and put any rubbish on there. …
This is no where near as true as it was ?3 …. ?5 years ago when Wiki got hammered for severely lacking in source references, editorial control, etc. As a matter of fact, initially, they swung so far the other way that being able to edit an article without review/removal of edit became so difficult it was practically crippling. As I understand it, it is still difficult.
That said … always best to check the references/sources and be appropriately skeptical of factual statements without good sources.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
Theres more than a couple citations at the bottom of that article if you would like to check that.
If you are not getting notifications of edits to pages you’ve edited this is an error in your settings. By default you are notified by email when someone edits a page you have authored or edited.
As far as staff - there are only about 60 paid staff members for Wikipedia. Given the size of the content I think its safe to say that those staff cannot collectively have viewed every article personally, no.
The way people use a resource is completely disconnected from the intrinsic value of that resource. If I give you a gun and you dont teach yourself to shoot, is it the guns fault for not hitting anything?
This is no where near as true as it was ?3 …. ?5 years ago when Wiki got hammered for severely lacking in source references, editorial control, etc. As a matter of fact, initially, they swung so far the other way that being able to edit an article without review/removal of edit became so difficult it was practically crippling. As I understand it, it is still difficult.
That said … always best to check the references/sources and be appropriately skeptical of factual statements without good sources.
If you make an edit, the article is flagged for review. Most articles are reviewed within a week of being flagged. If you make an edit without being logged it, a bot reviews the edit immediately looking to see if the edit is ‘vandalism’. There is a much more rigorous system in place than for any other encyclopedia.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
Theres more than a couple citations at the bottom of that article if you would like to check that.
If you are not getting notifications of edits to pages you’ve edited this is an error in your settings. By default you are notified by email when someone edits a page you have authored or edited.
As far as staff - there are only about 60 paid staff members for Wikipedia. Given the size of the content I think its safe to say that those staff cannot collectively have viewed every article personally, no.
The way people use a resource is completely disconnected from the intrinsic value of that resource. If I give you a gun and you dont teach yourself to shoot, is it the guns fault for not hitting anything?
Yep case closed
-
By dismissing an article on wikipedia as being unreliable due to self interest, you are doing what you claim to see as such a bad thing in others - taking wikipedia at face value without relying on the sources.
One of those sources is a study published in Nature. Reasonably well peer reviewed, I believe that one has such a reputation for.