CCRP LOFTING is very difficult
-
I think I see a minority of sim pilot’s arguing against altitude advantage and talking about “dogmas”. The right way to do things, is the one that kills your enemy. Try it out, you can maneuver, you can turn cold, you’re not a leaf, you use about 4200 ppm to maintain mach 1.0 at that altitude with small deviations of climb profile. There is no reason to get heated, unless the prospect of perhaps overlooking the ability of the aircraft you’ve studied at length is bothering you.
if you’re in BFM in the merge you already did something wrong, in 4th and 5th gen doctrines. You’ll have a hell of a time arguing the high ground against history and reality. Speed plus height equals energy potential. There is no equation when starting lower and slower is going to be helpful, and I find it kinda silly that we are talking about an aircraft with a disclosed service ceiling of 45k like it’s a grandma on a walker.
-
There is no reason to get heated, unless the prospect of perhaps overlooking the ability of the aircraft you’ve studied at length is bothering you.
cringe.
There is no equation when starting lower and slower is going to be helpful
I never said anything about going slower…. the exact opposite. I’m trying to emphasize the importance of always maintaining high speed and an altitude where the F-16 can maneuver aggressively. You can’t defend enemy missiles/SAMs well at 41,000 feet. A rocket loves to fly at that alt. An F-16 can’t do much more than gentle turns without being reduced to 250 knots. The high altitude tactics are much more suited for an F-15, are they not?
You seem to be obsessed with how bad dogma is, “Boom and Zoom,” OODA loops… Listen Col boyd, you’re not flying an F-4 in vietnam. I’d say fly it like a viper, play to its strengths, not pretend we’re in an F-15
-
Perhaps we should stop feeding the troll. At the very least, I want to be at the other side during the next falcon online round.
-
You’re argumentative and have something to prove, which is disappointing because that always ruins a good discussion. Enjoy your day.
-
You’re argumentative and have something to prove, which is disappointing because that always ruins a good discussion. Enjoy your day.
Some people are obsessed and are plagued with narcissism and it kills them to NOT be able to tell you how you should fly!! Ignore it!!
C9
-
Jesus, you two should get a room… I really wish all of your posts in the 80s thread didn’t get deleted btw.
I’m just trying to pass along some good advice I got from a pilot. I don’t care how anybody flies. @thereisnotime oh please, stop acting like nearly every post you make doesn’t contain passive aggressive snide remarks, you’re not so high and mighty.
-
@Cloud:
Some people are obsessed and are plagued with narcissism and it kills them to NOT be able to tell you how you should fly!! Ignore it!!
C9
you cannot prove anything to anyone, especially those who neglect study of the past.
-
if any thread exists, or any guidance at all would be very appreciated?
I cannot get most ordinance to come off the wing. hope you are all very well.
There is a thread for exactly this.
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?30091-CCRP-release-parameters
The entire thread is great reads. Lots of dev stuff and code and ballistics and guys’ experiments (that doesn’t sound right…) But at the"Last" post of the tread just tonight I summarize how I combined advice/technique from three gurus and tried it out successfully in a campaign mission just tonight. i actually missed the targets, but at least all the CBUs left the racks this time. Baby steps…
-
Also don’t enemy missiles perform a lot better at high altitude? They run out of energy much more quickly in higher density air.
You might have a point there.
The farthest firing guns in history all fired at ~60 degrees elevation, not 45 degrees like intuition or high school math would lead one to believe. Laypersons would think that firing at a 60 degree angle would lessen the distance, eh? Not so. They found (I think it was WWII Germans that first found it out, but it was co-discovered by various factions) that by shooting up at 60 degrees the shell entered the rarefied air sooner in its time-of-flight and remained in the rarefied air longer, and the benefits of maximizing time in rarefied air were increased throw due to lessened air resistance. Air pressure decreases geometrically not linearly as it rises. Even though geometry would suggest a 45 degree angle, the more time the shell spends in thicker air at those angles actually lessened the overall throw even though “the math” was on the side of 45 degrees.
So yeah, you might be correct that a missile up there would be more “energy efficient” than lower down.
On the other hand, that depends on how much energy it spent to get there in the first place (i.e. if the firing a/c was at SL vs already at FL280 or FL330). Also, lack of density means the stubby fins won’t turn the thing worth a darn.
On the other-other hand, neither would the a/c up there be maneuverable, so both objects (F-16 and AA-xx) would be on semi-fixed straight-line paths. It’ll all be a time-distance-rate-angle-energy equation then… -
Geometry doesnt make that suggestion, ballistics (in the technical sense of the word) does.
As far as missiles go, they are absolutely more effective up high than at lower altitudes. At higher altitude, the drag force on a missile is decreased, compared to at lower altitudes. This is because at higher altitudes, the air density is decreased, and drag force is proportional to air density. Double air density, you double drag. In addition to that, at higher altitude, the THRUST of the missile ALSO increases. This one is a little more complex, but the upshot is that in higher pressure environments, more energy is spent moving the high pressure air behind the rocket, out of the way of the plume - whereas in lower pressure environments, at best in a vacuum, that energy is spent on pushing the rocket forwards rather than air sideways.
So as you increase altitude, you decrease the loss of delta-v from aerodynamic drag, and you increase the delta-v available, as your specific impulse rises. The total change in velocity the rocket can achieve is much greater at altitude than it is, on the deck. Its such a big deal that, even if the aircraft is at low altitude, real world missile navigation programs (and the missile navigation program in BMS, lest you think Im knocking them here) will command the missile to climb up above the target, unless the target is already so close that range is not a concern at all. Its worth it to get up into that thinner air.
Missiles dont tend to use fins to turn. The fins are there as control surfaces primarily - the lift to turn is body lift. And for the most part, their speed means even with a low turn rate, the ability of the target to pull g is less relevant than other factors affecting miss distance. Several public papers have been written on the topic of missile miss distances, and best case tactics for defeating missiles inside their effective range. The short version is that missile effective blast radius for a modern missile is much larger than the miss distance its possible to generate solely using aerodynamic maneuvering. If you can introduce errors in missile navigation through electronic counter measures, or if you can defeat the missile kinematically - denying it the range required to reach you - then that is a different story.