Why so many SA-10 :)
-
â> 70nmâ thatâs a bit on the long side, me thinks
73nm vs SA-2. Launch and leave tactics with FCR not emitting. shrugs
-
@mookar:
Yes, youâre right about that, I apologize for the incorrect statement Still - have you seen or read in any form an AGM88 been shot down by either a gun or a missile? Curious.
This is a false information! No NATO asset has ever shot a round of ammunition at a Bulgarian military installment, at least no official data is present to account for it! It is pure speculation either on your or anybody elseâs part! It is a fact that an AGM88 crashed on a civilian house in the Gorna Banya district in Sofia but the missile has been identified later as a stray round fired at a Serbian SAM near the Serbian town of Pirot!
Here is a picture about impact and the missile. This is not a SAM, the size of the wreck, the shapes and markng are totally makes totally clear, this was an AGM-88.
http://forum.index.hu/Article/viewArticle?a=131692716&t=9120320 -
Missile was misinformed. That was Samâs house.
-
@Red:
you can
I tried & I canât.
In TE 63nm was the best case. And that was @ 31kft and above MK1.2The original poster need help avoiding SA-10 threats in HIS campaign experience.
Now its about who has the âbiggest missileâ
Not helpful to the average âJoeâ pilot who now thinks in campaign conditions he can shoot AGM-88 at 70nm out and be effective. Wonât do much for His ego or His planning skills.
-
73nm vs SA-2. Launch and leave tactics with FCR not emitting. shrugs
âshrugsâ thatâs helpfulâŚâŚnot, did you mod your TTL?
Edit OK. SA-10 as per original post.
69nm @ Mark 1.49 & 35Kft, how does this help the original poster? Whatever.
He wanted to know how to stay alive while doing his patrols ect.
-
I tried & I canât.
In TE 63nm was the best case. And that was @ 31kft and above MK1.2The original poster need help avoiding SA-10 threats in HIS campaign experience.
Now its about who has the âbiggest missileâ
Not helpful to the average âJoeâ pilot who now thinks in campaign conditions he can shoot AGM-88 at 70nm out and be effective. Wonât do much for His ego or His planning skills.
Agreed
but - although thatâs TE and less than 70Nm
it scoredThe point that is helpful to the OP is the following:
the BMS harm is capable of much longer range than the actual BMS in range cues
Thatâs valid in both TE and campaign and the actual distance is irrelevant, we are WAY above the in range cues
and certainly that will change tactics and help him stay alive in his SEAD part of the campaign -
@Red:
Agreed
but - although thatâs TE and less than 70Nm
http://www.flybms.org/viperdriver/Pilots/Darkman/images/PET10/PET10Darkman2.jpg
it scoredThe point that is helpful to the OP is the following:
the BMS harm is capable of much longer range than the actual BMS in range cues
Thatâs valid in both TE and campaign and the actual distance is irrelevant, we are WAY above the in range cues
and certainly that will change tactics and help him stay alive in his SEAD part of the campaignNever knew you could launch a HARM outside the LP envelope. Way beyond from what I am seeing here. IMHO, that needs to get fixed.
-
Never knew you could launch a HARM outside the LP envelope. Way beyond from what I am seeing here. IMHO, that needs to get fixed.
There are two separate things : make sure the missile behaves like the RL one (range, max speed, etcâŚ) ; and make sure the range cues actually indicates what the missile is capable of.
As the British say : wait and seeâŚ
-
afaik, the range cues are a bit inaccurate. Fox1âs will give you the LOSE TOI cue and hit their target without a problem, and Fox3âs are able to go quite a bit further than indicated, especially when lofting (the DLZ will give you a loft angle, but the DLZ does not reflect the additional range a lofted missile has)
-
There are two separate things : make sure the missile behaves like the RL one (range, max speed, etcâŚ) ; and make sure the range cues actually indicates what the missile is capable of.
As the British say : wait and seeâŚ
Behave like the real one? I donât think you could do that. But, more ârealisticâ would be more appropriate.
-
cues for amraam, agm130 and jsow just to name a few are often inaccurate; countdown to pitbull and WEZ. That said the 35nm bubble of the SA10 is for me NOT for the SA10, as I cannot lock it with JSOW over 35nm but I can with HARM and even then if I stray too far away say in a defensive move my missile may miss or then again it may hit; at least the HARM. In campaign with Veteran AAA setting I can lock and kill the SA10 before it hits me if I stay within the 35 mile bubble after launching HARM hence I wait for a audible rwr warning, launch the HARM, dive and pop up continuously to maintain itâs interest in me then get the kill almost 100pk. Now if I am on a strike mission, or barcap or any *****in mission and have no harms or JSOW and get spiked, I immediately if not sooner gain separation and fly around that fat bastard. This way I live to fly another day.
-
To the OP - actually, patrol or fighter escort ops should be performed on a âSAM cleanâ battlefield, escorting a flight in a SA10 environment is all 'round dangerous for every member of that flight. Clean the area you are to perform sweep/escort/patrol at of SA10 first and foremost, then everything else.
the BMS harm is capable of much longer range than the actual BMS in range cues
Yes but does the DLZ(?) of the HARM become âdynamicâ (change itâs size) to emphasize on this?
-
There are so many factors that will effect the actual flight of any missile, rocket or kinetic projectile that to expect the on-board systems to calc and display a 100% accurate WEZ is in the least naĂŻve.
OK how many variables do we have, fire/release platforms Ground Speed/Air Speed, Altitude, Attitude, Axial rotation, Slip and temp. Did I miss anything?
Now for the Missile, Rocket or Projectile. Fuel/Propellant load consistency, temp, air density/temp, wind direction (if any), release angle, deviation in its flight path, Low to high, High too Low and the changes that makes to air density/temp wind direction and velocity. Is the target manoeuvring, can that be foreseen. What if its raining that will consume kinetic energy. And more. Its as much an art as it is science.
My point is that because a weapon can on occasion be fired outside it displayed WEZ doesnât necessarily mean the simulation is at fault in any way, Iâm not saying there might be areas where improvements can be made.
Final word is that its the pilotâs job to know when to release the weapon not the airframes. Know thy weapon.
-
we need more SA-10s
-
we need more SA-10s
Somehow your link lead me to this.
The title made me laugh the content didnât :blowpar:
-
There are so many factors that will effect the actual flight of any missile, rocket or kinetic projectile that to expect the on-board systems to calc and display a 100% accurate WEZ is in the least naĂŻve.
OK how many variables do we have, fire/release platforms Ground Speed/Air Speed, Altitude, Attitude, Axial rotation, Slip and temp. Did I miss anything?
Now for the Missile, Rocket or Projectile. Fuel/Propellant load consistency, temp, air density/temp, wind direction (if any), release angle, deviation in its flight path, Low to high, High too Low and the changes that makes to air density/temp wind direction and velocity. Is the target manoeuvring, can that be foreseen. What if its raining that will consume kinetic energy. And more. Its as much an art as it is science.
My point is that because a weapon can on occasion be fired outside it displayed WEZ doesnât necessarily mean the simulation is at fault in any way, Iâm not saying there might be areas where improvements can be made.
Final word is that its the pilotâs job to know when to release the weapon not the airframes. Know thy weapon.
Yes but knowing âthyâ weapon comes form experience, and you donât normally shoot multi-hundred thousand dollar ordenance (yeah, itâs a sim but anyway) out of DLZ on a âto-see-if-it-will-hitâ basis The DLZ(?) on most of the weapons in Falcon are ball park estimate that is âoptimally exaggeratedâ, it is accurate enough and should be considered for a decent shot:)
-
Ultimately BMS doesnât have to model DLZ to match missile behavior with so many factors. Its lifeâs goal is to match F-16 DLZ behavior which must be simpler math. Leave it to Lockheed Martin to worry about matching DLZ to missile behavior. A simâs job is not to improve on the genuine articleâs performance.
And for long HARM shots I use TOF timer on WPN page for POS mode. When less than 200 seconds I am in range. My shot from before had ~185 predicted TOF, actual about 195.
-
Ultimately BMS doesnât have to model DLZ to match missile behavior with so many factors. Its lifeâs goal is to match F-16 DLZ behavior which must be simpler math. Leave it to Lockheed Martin to worry about matching DLZ to missile behavior. A simâs job is not to improve on the genuine articleâs performance.
And for long HARM shots I use TOF timer on WPN page for POS mode. When less than 200 seconds I am in range. My shot from before had ~185 predicted TOF, actual about 195.
Amen to that.
-
@mookar:
The DLZ(?) on most of the weapons in Falcon are ball park estimate that is âoptimally exaggeratedâ, it is accurate enough and should be considered for a decent shot:)
Thats very true. The original DLZ range code of F4 was clearly not the best. Its has only been changed for the AIM-120 in BMS, with new range data.
Now as this range data is a pain to obtain (you need tests, basically), you can understand not every missile has an accurate DLZ.
So, for now in 4.32, it is like this. In 4.33⌠wait and see.
-
done