An-225 0 Posted April 15, 2009 I did a search and I saw nothing related to this after a relatively brief scan over (keywords: missile effectiveness). ArmA has portrayed Air to Air missiles in a particularly weak manner, it takes two R-73s or two AIM-9s to shoot down another airplane. Generally there is also a large explosion in real life on missile impact too. The A2A element of ArmA II could be vastly improved by making these missiles a one hit kill...and adding a real explosion, other than a rusted airplane. After all, those planes are full of JP-8/Warsaw Pact equivalent and ordnance, they should go down in a fireball. The missile trajectory is also not realistic, rather than leading in front of the target, the missiles in ArmA makes several sharp maneuvers to get into a rear aspect position. This would help remove the TAB fire aspect, as the pilot would have to lead in front of the target as well, to make it easier for the missile to effectively target the enemy. A2A missiles should certainly not be able to target ground targets (nor MANPADs). And most aircraft should be provided with a rudimentary RWR - so that they know when they are being spiked by enemy radar, rather than just falling out of the sky because of a missile they never saw coming. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
draeath 10 Posted April 15, 2009 CH-46 said: I did a search and I saw nothing related to this after a relatively brief scan over (keywords: missile effectiveness).ArmA has portrayed Air to Air missiles in a particularly weak manner, it takes two R-73s or two AIM-9s to shoot down another airplane. Generally there is also a large explosion in real life on missile impact too. The A2A element of ArmA II could be vastly improved by making these missiles a one hit kill...and adding a real explosion, other than a rusted airplane. After all, those planes are full of JP-8/Warsaw Pact equivalent and ordnance, they should go down in a fireball. The missile trajectory is also not realistic, rather than leading in front of the target, the missiles in ArmA makes several sharp maneuvers to get into a rear aspect position. This would help remove the TAB fire aspect, as the pilot would have to lead in front of the target as well, to make it easier for the missile to effectively target the enemy. A2A missiles should certainly not be able to target ground targets (nor MANPADs). And most aircraft should be provided with a rudimentary RWR - so that they know when they are being spiked by enemy radar, rather than just falling out of the sky because of a missile they never saw coming. RWR doesn't detect infrared guided munitions like the Stinger or Strela. Also, such missiles do not lead, as far as I know, but home in on the heat bloom (which is behind the aircraft). But I'm pretty sure it's impossible to detect a passive sensor. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
An-225 0 Posted April 15, 2009 (edited) I never said that Strelas, Iglas and Stingers should produce an audible RWR tone, however Sidewinders and Archers do make tone (that is why I said "when spiked by enemy radar." I know that Strelas and Stingers are not radar guided). I'm pretty sure that the Sidewinder relies on radar contact first, I'm not sure about the Archer though (a test in LOMAC should work). The AIM-9X is all aspect, so in general it does seek the heat source, but is capable of leading the target from almost any angle. Not sure about the Archer's aspect. Update: I did multiple tests using different threats and aircraft: Test 1. Player as F-15 with Su-27 placed 500m behind. Su-27 loadout: 4 R-73s. My RWR went off within a few seconds and the next thing I know, I'm spiraling towards the Black Sea. Test 2. Player as Su-27 with F-15 placed 500m behind. F-15 loadout: 4 AIM-9 Sidewinders. Same as above, RWR went off. Test 3. Player as A-10 with MANPAD (Strela) placed a klick away. No audible warning, but the Strela missed and damaged an air data tube. Test 4. Player as Su-27 with MANPAD (Stinger) placed a klick away. No audible warning, direct hit, crater on the ground. The tests with MANPADs only had audible warnings on missile launch, but nothing to set off my RWR as to the direction or distance of the launch. So yes, it would be realistic to have an RWR threat show up in select airplanes upon R-73 or Sidewinder launch (the KA-50/2 has no RWR, although I don't believe the public knows too much about the KA-52, so thats an assumption based on the KA-50). Let me clarify, and say that I do not expect ArmA II to have complicated systems such as those in Black Shark or LOMAC. But an RWR is an essential when flying a fighter jet, and to model one would not be to model a complicated system. It is just as necessary as an attitude indicator or altimeter. Edited April 15, 2009 by CH-46 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoRailgunner 0 Posted April 15, 2009 You're joking arent you? Modern Air-to-Air combat is mostly BVR not like in WW1 or WW2. 500m -unrecognized- behind a enemy plane....seems that you watched too many hollywood action movies. R-73 and AIM-9X effective range: 30-40 km AIM-9X and R-73 using infrared (IR) energy for acquisition and tracking. Modern medium range AA missiles have operational range of more than 100km and fly with up to Mach 4 speed. When you hear the RWR ringing its too late and you were too slow. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MBot 0 Posted April 15, 2009 CH-46 said: I'm pretty sure that the Sidewinder relies on radar contact first, I'm not sure about the Archer though (a test in LOMAC should work). AIM-9 and R-73 are IR weapons like Stingers and Iglas, they do not trigger a launch warning on a RWR. Those weapons are usually cued to a target by radar (radar tells IR seeker where to look) but that is not necessary to actually use them. Also as you can see in LOMAC, your RWR will only tell you you have been locked up. It can not detect an IR missile launch. So having no launch warnings from all the anti-air missiles in Arma II is actually pretty realistic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr.g-c 6 Posted April 15, 2009 (edited) Detection of incoming Missiles are done in RL like this: Every modern Military Airvehicle has a Device to Detect Incomming Missles, independent of any "RWR"! Unfortunately i forgot the the proper Name of the Device, but most likely its called something like "Missile Income Warning Receiver" or similar This Device usually works by looking 360° Around the Airvehicle and detects any Incoming missile by its IR Signature of its own burning propellant. This Device (if set to Auto mode) then triggers Flares/Chaff Countermeasures if available and (if available) triggers a warn-lamp or warn-tone in the cockpit of the crew. Even though its in constant development by the military industrial complex (because you can be assured that a skilled pilot is worth x-times the value of any aircraft for the military) they have the disadvantage of a rather low range of detection and can only detect a missle which is already incoming - not the tracking of the shooter itself (like at Radar guided missiles).... Also the most of those IR-Guided Missles are rather short-range ones, which making the reaction time by such a Device and/or the Pilot even shorter => Deadlier. That are (some of) the reasons why those Manpads are so deadly and devastating (like proven in Afghanistan/Iraq) To compensate a bit for that, Pilots ususally drop packs of Flars manually at every incoming and outcoming of a attack/strafe run (you can see it at all those Afganistan Footages). I hope that helped a bit. EDIT: I found it with Google, lol Its called "AN/AAR-44 Infra-Red Missile Approach Warning System" (MAWS). http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/an-aar-44.htm Quote "The AN/AAR-44 is a passive Infrared Warning Receiver designed to provide warning of Surface to Air Missiles (SAMS) and pass information to countermeasures systems. The AN/AAR-44 Missile Approach Warning System (MAWS) warns of threat missile approach, enabling the effective employment of evasive maneuvers and electronic and infrared countermeasures. The system detects a missile launch by reading the IR heat signature of the missile's plume. The sensor unit continually spins 360 degrees watching the ground for a missile launch. When it detects an IR that matches its threat database it gives the aircrew a visual warning to the missile's bearing in relationship to the aircraft. It also gives an audible warning. If selected, it can be tied to the ALE-40 to automatically dispense chaff or flare. This system is manufactured by Cincinnati Electronics." Janes: Quote "The AN/AAR-44 IR missile warning receiver is designed to provide a long-range, multithreat search and verification capability against emerging IR missile threats while continuously tracking already detected threats. Over time, the equipment has been identified in two iterations (designated as the AN/AAR-44 and the AN/AAR-44A). Generic system features include:the use of scanning IR technologydemonstrated 'pinpoint' threat resolution for directional countermeasures steeringfunctionality over the 'entire' flight envelopevariable sensor configurations for hemispheric or spherical fields-of-viewmultispectral discriminators for background and countermeasures rejectionlong-range detection to maximise the time available to counter threatsfull compatibility with EMCON operationsfull system operation with or without databus integrationclaimed high probability of detection and low false alarm rate.AAR-44A differs from its predecessors by virtue of its use of 'current technology' throughout the system, the availability of a Directional IR CounterMeasures (DIRCM) interface and its ability to be re-programmed on the flight line. Jane's sources suggest that specific AAR-44A system features include:multicolour IR detection technology for 'positive' missile warning with a 'minimum' false alarm ratemultiple, simultaneous threat detectionresistance to decoy flaresbetter than 1° angular detectionan integral laser-pointing growth pathautomatic visual and audio threat warningsa countermeasures command capabilitytrack-while-search processing." Edited April 15, 2009 by mr.g-c Added reference for my claim Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PuFu 4600 Posted April 15, 2009 CH-46 said: ... The current behaviour in arma is there because a number of limitations, which i hope won't be in arma2 anymore: 1. AA missile can lock lock on grounds as well since airlock=1 needs canlock=1 (which gives the overall locking behavior). I would love to see arma2 coming without this thing, so you can actually have manpads and AA missile locking on aircraft targets only. 2. The 2 AA kills another plane is there (i assume) because any kind of countermeasures are missing. Also, the maneuverability of those kind of missiles needs to be slightly reduced (manpads and AA alike), since the current value doesn't allow you to miss. Countermeasures were TBA, but i doubt will make AA2. Btw, AIM9x and R73 will aim for the heat bloom if IR mode 3. There is no config way of having a proximity fuse in arma. It can be done via XEH though if the above changes in AA2, i am sure stuff could be easier adjusted if not set correctly in vanilla version by different mod teams *cough* :P Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
An-225 0 Posted April 15, 2009 Some people here have understood me, while others have simply over thought this. I never at any point stated that Iglas and Stingers produced a recognisable signature on RWR, to be honest I don't know why LOMAC even made a "missile launch" sound on said MANPADs. And I also never requested an RWR detecting missile launch for ArmA. Rather, I requested an RWR that records radar lock from Tunguskas and enemy aircraft. TheImperator, I placed the test aircraft 500m behind me to force them into Helmet-Bore mode, rather than BVR. If they went into BVR mode, the results would have been faux, as they would have used their radar to identify me. The only A2A ordnance present in ArmA is IR. Do not insinuate that I am an idiot - the test was conducted with ArmA's ordnance in mind. I understand that logic pufu - but this could surely be a balancing factor for the A2A ordnance, and an organic factor too. Shame about the targeting factor allowing it to engage ground targets. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baff1 0 Posted April 15, 2009 Why do we think an IR guided MANPAD shouldn't be able to lock onto a tank? Tanks are very hot, especially when they have been firing. Lots of anti tank systems use IR. I don't think it is wrong that you can lock air to air missiles on ground targets, it's only wrong that they are very effective against them, since they are a flak attacks, proximity detonated fragmentation devices, and not armour piercers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PuFu 4600 Posted April 15, 2009 Baff1 said: Why do we think an IR guided MANPAD shouldn't be able to lock onto a tank? Tanks are very hot, especially when they have been firing. Lots of anti tank systems use IR. I don't think it is wrong that you can lock air to air missiles on ground targets, it's only wrong that they are very effective against them, since they are a flak attacks, proximity detonated fragmentation devices, and not armour piercers. well, i didn't meant to sound that way. Yes, should be able to lock on SOM tanks (such a jet powered engine m1s), but you can lock on ANY ground vehicles, such as cars, strykers etc. Due to how hit system is done in arma, they can be quite effective, while iRL, the proximity fuse renders them useless. I doubt there will be any way of differentiating it in the configs, thus i was requesting the airlock not being dependent on canlock. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
draeath 10 Posted April 15, 2009 Sidewinders only need radar guidance prior to launch if they are caged. Once uncaged, the seeker head will do it's thing while the missle is still on it's hardpoint. However, they like to seek on the strongest signal, and if your unlucky will even lock onto the sun. But, my point is that MANPAD infrareds generally don't do that. You have a person physically aiming them, rather than a radar-based tracking system linked to the missile. If a squishie on the ground launches on you, the only thing that can save you is luck and eyeballs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
An-225 0 Posted April 16, 2009 Regarding ground targets, right now, MANPADs can attack anything, even if the engine is off and it is a HMMWV. Regarding guidance and RWR, we have no idea what the pilot does to lock on at this point in time, whether its helmet-bore or using the Doppler/N001 as you would do to search for BVR targets. However, it would be a fair move, if A2A ordnance was made a one hit kill, and whenever you are tracked by something with a radar, you get an RWR tone, whether you have an Su-34 behind you, or when a Shilka or Tunguska is following you. My point is, I never requested prior warning to a MANPAD launch. Also, the KA-50 can carry 12 Vikhr missiles - all primarily intended for AT purposes, although you can slave the missiles for AA purposes - it is a helicopter. It takes only one Vikhr to shoot down an airplane, and it has twelve of these. The Fullback and Harrier both carry only 4 IR missiles, and it takes two hits to shoot down an airplane. Airplanes whose purpose (with this loadout) is to shoot down other airplanes. This limits both planes to only take down two airplanes (on average), while the KA-50, a helicopter, can get 12. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites