AA10A SARH hitting and destrouing me after launching aircraft destroyed
-
@whitepony99:
DB says that the AA-10A/C seeker uses a different seeker type then a traditional SARH this is why you have this issue.
What does this mean???
Once missile leaves the rail the missile uses a radar seeker head ON THE MISSILE much like an AIM-120
Yes, its based on Radar AAM avionics (db), but exactly that should not be the case, right? Do the real AA-10A/C s have the ability to track on their own? Not to my knowledge.
Question IS, does BMS really support missile-guidance the right way regards semi-active A2A missiles launched from planes - in other words, is there
a true “communication” between plane-radar and semi-active missiles ??Once the lock is broken (cranked to much ie) or the emitter plattform (plane) is destroyed the SARH should never be able to impact on target.
We discussed this a while ago… and sure enough it had to came up again… hope it does not turn out to be a “pandoras box”.
This is why i wrote above…this will be an interesting thread.
-
sounds like a SARH/IR seeker.
I’m sure how BMS models the red AA missiles.
iirc AA-10a/b are SARH/IR in F4
-
@A.S:
Yes, its based on Radar AAM avionics (db), but exactly that should not be the case, right? Do the real AA-10A/C s have the ability to track on their own? Not to my knowledge.
Question IS, does BMS really support missile-guidance the right way regards semi-active A2A missiles launched from planes - in other words, is there
a true “communication” between plane-radar and semi-active missiles ??Once the lock is broken (cranked to much ie) or the emitter plattform (plane) is destroyed the SARH should never be able to impact on target.
We discussed this a while ago… and sure enough it had to came up again… hope it does not turn out to be a “pandoras box”.
This is why i wrote above…this will be an interesting thread.
BMS does not support true SARH every SARH missile has seeker head data based on another type of radar. Its not just BMS its in the code of Falcon.
-
sounds like a SARH/IR seeker.
I’m sure how BMS models the red AA missiles.
iirc AA-10a/b are SARH/IR in F4
Nope its a radar seeker for the AA-10A/C and an IR for the AA-10B/D
-
Alright milling through misdat files and it according to the AA-10A/C misdat uses the same guidance as the AIM-7 and I know for a fact that if you break lock on an AIM-7 that missile goes stupid
Back to the drawing board
-
@whitepony99:
Its not just BMS its in the code of Falcon.
Yeah, that´s what i meant actually. But what to do about it and how to fix it?
Because the whole beauty about different combat doctrines, having medium range “actives” versus longer range “semi-actives” and thus the whole A, F and E Pole considerations plus the fact that russian radars mostly have wider radar-gimbles is based on this.
For example - in tactical terms:
F16 with Aim-120: PRO fire and forget - CONTRA less to med range, can stay flexible as single fighter tactically
Su-30 with R-27ER: PRO longer range, wider radar gimbles and often earlier burn-through (stronger radar) - CONTRA has to maintain lock (semi-active), requires often wingmen tacticallyThose pro and contras reflect exactly in the different combat-tactic doctrines of US and RUS based planes of that time (later R77 came and so on…).
But this problem also invovles F-16 vs F-16 with only Aim-7s. If lock-breaking tactics do not work properly, because the SARH (Aim-7) is still able to track, then the whole SARH counter tactics (like beam, notch etc etc) will be uneffective and useless.
Flacon and proper semi-actives …. as you pointed… reconsiderations of a classic topic once again. F4 was mostly a “Fox 3 world” - so to speak - with little to none or “poor” attention to SARHs.
Flaming Cliffs or DCS was much more about FOX 1 and FOX3 “balances” and proper implementations as russian planes were(are) human fly-ables. Well, it was a hot debated and always changing “area” anyways… -
You got F4Browse A.S?
If so go into the AA-10A WCD file and look at the seeker type, let me know what your DB says mine says 117.
I was told at one time that they gave the SARH A2A missiles seekers so they werent as easily spoofed
-
mine says 117.
I was told at one time that they gave the SARH A2A missiles seekers so they werent as easily spoofed
Yes, its 117, so?
But it is the right way to do things, because obviously we observe SARHs tracking and hitting targets without being guided and that can´t be right.
Let´s extent this topic: What about SAM missiles, which DEPEND on the ground radar lock? -
Most SARH SAM’s are seeker type 0 in the DB
But if you look in the SA-2 misdat it is seeker type 6 seeker version 1
The AA-10A misdat is seeker type 6 and seeker version 0???I think the key is held in the misdat file to be honest
-
Whitepony …my question (if you missed it) is actually : " is there a true “communication” between plane-radar and semi-active missiles ??"
-
I am not sure need to test it out……
-
Let me test this out and gather some ACMI
-
@whitepony99:
Nope its a radar seeker for the AA-10A/C and an IR for the AA-10B/D
let me try again. some of the AA-10’s in F4 had both SARH and IR seekers.
iirc the aa-10a/b had both ir and sarh. the aa-10c was just sarhthe aa-10a was the weapon on choice in human/mig-21 vs human-16 because it worked like a ARH without the
-
In real life the AA10A/C are SARH and the AA10B/D are radar and IR.
It is not possible to model the radar to IR missiles due to code limitations. This is why the Mica IR has ridiculous gimbals and FOV in order to track anything in its engagement range it needs a modified seeker with added range and gimbals
The AA10D however does not use this seeker which makes it highly ineffective at any range. Try firing the AA10D at something maneuvering while maintaining your lock, your missile will miss
Completely off topic but needed to explain it
-
@whitepony99:
In real life the AA10A/C are SARH and the AA10B/D are radar and IR.
It is not possible to model the radar to IR missiles due to code limitations. This is why the Mica IR has ridiculous gimbals and FOV in order to track anything in its engagement range it needs a modified seeker with added range and gimbals
The MICA IR does not have any ridiculous gimbals as you say: the SAGEM (the seeker manufacturer) announced gimbals are +/- 60°.
Furthermore the AA-10B (R-27T) and AA-10D (R-27ET) are not “radar and IR”, they are pure IR. They furthermore lack inertial and datalink guidance, unlike the MICA IR (talking about RL here).
-
let me try again. some of the AA-10’s in F4 had both SARH and IR seekers.
iirc the aa-10a/b had both ir and sarh. the aa-10c was just sarhthe aa-10a was the weapon on choice in human/mig-21 vs human-16 because it worked like a ARH without the
Hi caper
Not so.
The AA-10a/c are both SARH only. Their seaker head is a receiver and does not radiate, relies apon “illumination” from the aircrafts radar.The AA-10b/d have only a IR seaker head and receive no mid course updates from the firing airframes, this is easily tested.
-
there maybe as an old “quick threat reference.pdf” bundled in bms\doc\ that states deffer
-
Hi caper
The AA-10a/c are both SARH only. Their seaker head is a receiver and does not radiate, relies apon “illumination” from the aircrafts radar.
The AA-10b/d have only a IR seaker head and receive no mid course updates from the firing airframes, this is easily tested.
Correct, that´s how the real concept, with the addition, that the AA-10B/D (R-27T and R-27ET) can be linked (“slaved” in F4 terms) to the radar AND/OR the EOS (electro optical system) initially prior to launch.
In other words the Su-27 ie can lock you up and fire at you without ANY RWR threat warnings. -
@A.S:
Correct, that´s how the real concept, with the addition, that the AA-10B/D (R-27T and R-27ET) can be linked (“slaved” in F4 terms) to the radar AND/OR the EOS (electro optical system) initially prior to launch.
In other words the Su-27 ie can lock you up and fire at you without ANY RWR threat warnings.Correct but we are only talking Falcon/BMS here so I didn’t want to complicate the point I was making by adding more details then relevant.
-
AA-10, not SA-10.
Oh sorry. My bad, but still, worth the question of the distance from after TO.