AA10A SARH hitting and destrouing me after launching aircraft destroyed
-
Happens regularly. 2-Mig29 vs me in F18C. Launching aircraft had already exploded and the other is nose down on fire. 2 good chutes.
-
Acmi?
-
obviously not. Unless a Mig29 nose down on fire with pilot ejected 14,000 ft below me at 10 miles has radar that can maintain lock you will just have to believe me.
-
This post is deleted! -
great response dude and so helpful. Thank you.
Anyone else ever experience being downed by AA10A in similar circumstances?
-
This post is deleted! -
great response dude and so helpful. Thank you.
Anyone else ever experience being downed by AA10A in similar circumstances?
What mission? What Theater? Distance between you and the SA 10 at TO???
Need a bit more info please.
-
Is your ECM still active?
-
…. Distance between you and the SA 10 at TO???
Need a bit more info please.
AA-10, not SA-10.
-
Seen that happening before - SARH (semi-active missile depending on the lock and guidance of the planes radar) tracking target after guidance plattform was destroyed or lock was broken.
This will be an interesting thread :=)
-
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
Why is it like this?
I dont know
Can it be fixed
Yes
-
@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
