A-A Missiles doubts.
-
What everyone forgets, in that discussion of “holly” weapons and how it compares to RL, is how the probabiliy ot kill of a weapon is made up of several factors. Just to name few….radar support, relative energy between attacker and target at the launch, geometry, range, use of ECM/ECCM, hit geometry, type of warhead etc. A comparison between RL engagement outcomes with F4 ones is very difficult, if not impossible. F4 does not simulate many of these factors.
On the other hand, the outcome of 2D and 3D engagements in F4 should give in average a similar result. This does not always happen in BMS (or in any other F4 version of the past). The 2D stats should be tuned to mirror what happens in the 3D world (surely for Ai vs Ai, perhaps in some cases Ai vs human).
My 2 cents.
-
Molni, again and again, you still stuck with ODS era.
The DB is filled with ODS era weapons and because of lack of subtypes… For ex. there is no AIM-9L…
You have no idea how things have change since.
I have. I can live with holy AIM-9X but as R-73 and AIM-9M…? Eh…
-
@mookar:
True tactic but not used actively as I know since WWII (heck, even the Russians don’t do it anymore :D) Nowadays radars are too smart for that.
The US used this a lot during Linebacker II - however on some occasions the wind blew the cover away exposing the B-52s
B-52s in ECM cells carrying their own chaff was more effective.
-
….
I’m not even mentionning the slammer head-on avoidance, which is a total heresy we do no use, and relies only on the poor missile modeling values. I’m talking about knowing when an enemy can get a dangerous shot at you, and turning away before.IRL, missiles ARE deadly. And most missiles in F4 are not nearly as deadly as they should be. In trainings, IRL, a missile shot within hit parameters means a kill. Why do you think that is, if modern missiles were so poor ? Its not the 70s anymore… In F4, ATM, most SHORADs or MANPADs are almost useless. But I dont see you complaining about that.
So no, most seeker modeling values wont change, and for good reasons. And if you are sad about it, well, too bad.
Yes agree with this the A-A missiles in BMS are long way from Holy - and the MANPADs are LOL
IR missiles that use Imaging seekers look very difficult for flares to defeat despite the different types of flares now in use - anything that doesn’t though you could expect to still be spoofed to an extent by modern flare types.
-
I guess you need to “fly like a flare” when you drop flares to fool the new type of missiles, flying straight and dropping them won’t fool them as they probably do “backcheck” if something deviates from “normal” too fast.
-
Unless you can look like a flare as well, that wont help too much.
-
Gresat discussion here guys.
-
Unless you can look like a flare as well, that wont help too much.
That’s the point with imaging infrared seekers…
-
I guess the way modern seekers work is they don’t merely follow a ‘white hot dot’ but the contrasting outline of the target aircraft.
-
It would be a blob at range - but under a certain range it can see the shape.
-
In F4, ATM, most SHORADs or MANPADs are almost useless. But I dont see you complaining about that.
Well, to be fair, he has actually complained about MANPADs at least.
-
Also regardless how hardcore sim BMS4 this is still “only” a game. Gameplay wise my aspect is very simple. I cannot accept weapons which cannot be defeated but only one way.
… everything is said.
Thank you to finally admit it.
Check this statistic. And most of target did not have even dispensers. The only question is the launch range considering NEZ and DLC.
http://www.mediafire.com/download/gr…/AAM-stats.zipCruz has access to much more than statistic.
A comparison between RL engagement outcomes with F4 ones is very difficult, if not impossible. F4 does not simulate many of these factors.
True. And this is why WE (BMS) think that improvements is not in the database only, but in the code and database. Even with a highly tweaked database, results will still be disputable, in one way or another.
-
Well, to be fair, he has actually complained about MANPADs at least.
SHORAD also.
In a rule of thumb, my dear Monli is used to complain about everything.
Gresat discussion here guys.
Discussion is rather garbage here. Better check this : https://www.dropbox.com/s/26s87625cavex2q/Electronic%20Warfare%20Fundamentals.pdf?dl=0
-
This post is deleted! -
By SHORADs do you guys mean SA11/SA15/SA17s and the like, because in BMS those are pretty dangerous.
-
@mookar:
By SHORADs do you guys mean SA11/SA15/SA17s and the like, because in BMS those are pretty dangerous.
They are - but they don’t generally sit next to the bigger SAMs shooting at HARMs - if that’s what they can do.
-
SA-15 could be considered SHORAD. But I was talking about SA-8 / 9 / 13 / 19
-
SA-15 could be considered SHORAD. But I was talking about SA-8 / 9 / 13 / 19
The SA-13 can be fairly lethal at certain altitudes in testing I found - haven’t seen much of the SA-8/19.
In reality the first gen SA-7/9 Strela without any modernisation were not that great even before IR flares were used - so being naff is about correct IMO.
-
sa9/13 are relatively threatening; the real reason they are toothless is they are comparatively rare and spaced predictably. in BMSkorea they only appear in the relatively stationary HQ battalions, along with the premier tank battalions, both of which are relatively few. IMO the default battalion rosters for SAMs should probably be reworked to include SHORADs, along with most mech/tank battalions. once they’re spread out over a wide area they would provide a very effective no-go, as it is since HQs are clustered in towns, if you avoid the towns you avoid the hongying/SA13 swarm and it’s relatively easy to clusterbomb with impunity.
-
I seem to recall comments that only one weapon system in a battalion can fire at a time?