Air to Air missiles, and why they need to change

After reading your original post I like the idea of more detailed A/A weapons but first a couple of observations. 1 heat seekers in some aircraft have more than one mode so you have caged(locked on by radar and the IR seeker is looking at that location). Uncaged that's where the seeker is searching for the tgt(heat source). And you have boresight which is where the missile only locks onto the tgt inside the circle in the HUD. For A/A dogfight modes there is in modern fighters submodes such as vertical scan, boresight etc. And these submodes allow the pilot to have better options in the dogfight in some situations. The other thing is modern fighters such as Superhornet, SU27 etc have helmet mounted sights so the pilot has a sight on his helmet that he can place on the tgt outside the seekers limits in the HUD but off boresight. These missiles such as Aim9X and R73 have 90 degrees and 67degrees off boresight capability while the Python has 180 degrees in other words a futuristic heat seeker can hit tgts behind you IRL.(current versions of the Aim9X and R73 no doubt will eventually have newer versions with the same capability.

For radar launched missiles they do not use semi active homing now days(Aim7) but more likely active radar homing missiles such as the Aim 120 AMRAAM and R77. These missiles work the same now for the start when they are launched the radar on the missile does not go active until they are within range for the missiles seeker. So in the HUD when you launch them you still are required to keep a lock until the timer has counted off the seconds until the missile has gone "Pitbull"(active). These missiles also have a submode which is called HOJ (home on jam) which is where the missile homes in on Electronic jamming by enemy aircraft. In the electronic warfare side of things the ECM jamming decreases the distance that is required to achieve burnthrough which is where the radar has penetrated the ECM noise and returned a positive location of the jamming aircrafts location. For radars themselves there are submodes including RWS,STT, TWS, Dogfight etc. With them comes different scanning zones of the radars search pattern that help the pilot locate enemy aircraft. BTW it doesn't matter if its a IR or radar guided missile both can easily shoot down an aircraft IRL, just because the IR missile has a smaller explosive charge does not mean that it would not destroy an aircraft if hit in the right location so damage modelling for the devs would be a complex issue but adds a lot to a sim if done the right way.

Thanks for that bit of info about the AMRAAMs. I have played a moderate amount of DCS:A-10 so I am relatively familiar with how heatseekers are directed and fired but I did not know the stuff about the radar guided missiles (I don't think the A-10 can even use those). I think keeping the lock until the missile has gone active would be a nice compromise in terms of a game mechanic, approximately how long would it take (from launch) for the seeker head to become active?

Unfortunately I don't think multiple firing modes (such as uncaged, scan, for IR, HOJ for radar) would ever be implemented in arma (that level of simulation doesn't really fit in with the game's style). I think the actual radius of the lock works fine for now (in fact, I think it should be a slightly smaller circle, so that a circle that can fit on the HUD depicts the zone where you place the target).

The Aim9X has whats called LOAL (Lock on after launch) and can hit anything at 90 degrees around the aircraft, Pythons can do 180 degrees off boresight so they can be fired at aircraft behind you. Delays for LOAL instant so there is no delay there, for a normal lock it takes only a few seconds if uncaged, if caged to a radar lock then its a few seconds but less than that of uncaged because the missile already knows where to look. All of the stuff that I mentioned fits with Arma3 as ECM could be just noise jamming and HOJ is just a missile that homes in on ECM jamming. I think neither would be that difficult for the devs, ideally FC3 level is a realistic level for Arma as at that level you have practical employment of the ordnance in a realistic manner. Going DCS level is ideal but not necessary for game play. Also they could model a type of AWACs which would allow a futuristic fighter the equivalent to labels on if you were in such an aircraft. (like the F35 IRL) BTW don't compare the A-10Cs Air to Air missiles because although they are practical for that aircraft an F-15/SU27 can lock and fire its missiles quicker because of the radar.(A-10C does not have radar but its targeting pod does have an Air to Air mode)

Yes I am familiar with LOAL and such.

The issue with implementing things like you describe is that while they may be realistic, they do not make for good game mechanics. Imagine how boring it would be if a jet being chased in a dogfight could shoot his pursuers with missiles.

What I want is for the missiles to act moderately realistically while also making for more interesting air to air combat (not just lock and spam).

It would be interesting to eventually see ECM and such modeled (perhaps a fixed-wing DLC would also include some better radar modeling), but things such as the HOJ submodes, etc are too complex for a game like ArmA. We need to have some simulation of the technology, but the core focus is in creating good air to air combat gameplay, which is based mainly on flight model, etc. Complex missile firing modes besides Top/Dir (for Titan missiles) and perhaps LOAL don't really have a place here since it ends up taking too much away from the core combat experience (infantry combat, marksmanship, driving, flying & gunning).

LOAL has been around for a few decades and it fits with a future warfare theme although they could later model older weapons that may require more attention to how weapons are employed. ECM is not that difficult to model and neither is HOJ if its just basic noise jamming. The better way though for weapons could be also the interface of how they are used so for off boresight IR missiles you might have JHCMs helmet display and that particular mode on a button. You still have to with JHCMs place the reticle on the enemy aircraft and push lock. So its not spam locking you have to see it, be in the mode and place the reticle to lock and fire. I think basing the aircraft weapons employment similar to FC3s aircraft would be simple yet practical. Another good sim is BMS or F4AF where you can see an even better example of such systems being used in a sim. Normally though off boresight weapons are only used when both aircraft are merged and WVR, often the BVR missiles do the job unless its 2 groups and that have closed in on each other in the fight. Other things a JHCMS system could do is place a markpoint on the ground for CAS and have JHCMS/HUD markers to indicate direction and distance to help the pilot for things like CAS.

Radar modes are important and detail in that area would greatly improve Arma3s aircraft so you have in the F-16 Velocity search, Track While scan, Range while scan, Single Target Track and Dogfight mode. Each mode is useful in its own way most common though is RWS/TWS/STT and Dogfight, RWS gives you a broad picture of the scan ahead of the aircraft showing contacts distance/speed and direction, TWS allows the pilot to lock onto one aircraft or more while tracking those aircraft in the scan area. STT only tracks one tgt only giving data on direction/altitude/speed while dogfight automatically locks onto the tgt in the search area and allows gun and IR missile calculations. As well as radar modes the aircraft need IFF which is sort of already in some versions of arma, in aircraft like the F35 the IFF is automatic and shows aircraft as red or green and can show the information in the helmet even outside the aircrafts radar scan pattern thanks to the EODAS.

The Five Stages of a BVR Engagement

The five basic stages in chronological order are:

Awareness and Detection

Sorting

Intercept

Defensive Response

Kill Confirmation

So when flying with a Squadron we go through this process in order to sort out whos going to shoot at what aircraft and on the radar display the tools need to be there in order for a realistic modelling of the engagement. Its not just lock and shoot we have to follow the above sequence in order for the intercept to be accomplished. So for that to work in A3 we need a decent radar, HSD and RWR to support the weapons and give the best chance against the enemy.

Awareness and Detection

For this we use the Radar, eyeball and the RWR. The RWR is handy because although an aircraft cannot be detected by the radar due to its position outside the radar scan pattern it will emit its radar and the RWR will detect it and give an indication of what the aircraft type is and direction. From there the pilot only has to adjust his scan area to detect it on the radar and start tracking it. (if ECM is on then you might not get a lock until you achieve burn through which is where the radar penetrates the jamming and can lock the enemy aircraft.) You also want a zoom feature so there might be a formation of enemy aircraft in TWS you lock one and then zoom and now you can work out how many aircraft are in the formation. Also a radar can in some aircraft like the F-16/F-15 identify an enemy aircraft by the radar reflecting off the turbine blades/shape of the aircraft(NCTR-Non Co-operative Target Recognition).

Great Post, One thing I've noticed is that at the same distance if an enemy fires a SAM at me 3 burst of flares and the thing will still hit or miss by a hair. No matter the maneuvers. Yet when i fired the same missile at a similar target at nearly the same range, With ONE birst of flares the missle was broke in some random direction away from the jet. Going nowhere near it. And in some cases hit the ground 100meters infront of me.

They need to work on the tracking of he missiles. Where if they dump flares it can be seen to actually target the flare that diverted it. instead of breaking off 45degrees in some random direction.

Missile behavior like that of DCS would be great. Oh, and they need to bring back the single flare burst that was in arma 2.

The problem with Arma's missiles is that they're unpredictable in the wrong way.

Yes, in real life missiles are very unpredictable, especially the passively guided, IR seeking variants. When you are being tracked by one, you just have to dump flares and hope for the best. The missile might hit you anyways. But at the same time, it varies greatly on other aspects that are more in your control. For example, in real life, flares typically come out of the underside of an aircraft. So turning your belly toward an incoming missile improves your chances of spoofing it. Real life missiles are predictably unpredictable if that makes any sense. It's clear that they are hell-bent on hitting you so you have to try your best to evade them. When it comes at you, it becomes a sudden struggle for dear life.

On the other hand, Arma missiles are unpredictably unpredictable. Sometimes you don't do anything at all to evade them, you just pop flares, and they miss. Sometimes you do the exact same thing and they hit. It seems to be genuinely random. Like a roll of the dice. The same goes for pulling maneuvers. It evades them almost every time, but sometimes they just hit you anyways. This means that when you hear the incoming missile warning, you think, "well shoot time to drop flares and see if I get hit" as opposed to in DCS where hearing the incoming missile warning means the next few seconds are going to be a fight for your life.

The other issue with this is that the consequence for getting his isn't high enough.

This actually applies to any damage done to jets. The way it is now, you're either dead or you can fly pretty much fine. This is a problem because it means jet pilots don't worry about getting hit. They can fly as close and low to the targets as they want. This means that BI has to nerf their weapons to hell (especially the guns) in order to make it fair. And as a result, pilots have to fly closer to kill their targets. And now we have an endless cycle of crappy balancing that results in useless and unrealistic jets.

In real life (and I'm using DCS as a source for this because I am assuming enough research went in to it to make it a reliable source), aircraft are far more fragile. Even taking just 1 bullet of medium caliber (12.7mm/.50cal and above) to the nose or frontal fuselage of the aircraft typically knocks out important systems, typically the CICU (controller for the displays in-cockpit). Following that (in terms of how easily it gets knocked out) are the CDU/EGI (GPS navigation systems) and the gun itself (if you take hits to the front of the nose). Fuel leaks often result from hits to the wings, and hits to the engine result in reduced engine power output (I assume from loss of pressure and/or damage to turbines in the engine). It only takes a few bullets to significantly wound the aircraft, knocking out many of its vital systems, and damaging engines. One well placed burst from AAA or another aircraft (sometimes even the .50 on top of a tank) is enough to render the aircraft almost completely FUBAR. The only reason you might not have to punch out is because the A-10 has the fantastic ability to be able to fly with only one engine, half the tail, and half of one wing missing.

If BI just made the damage model on fixed-wings better, pilots would have to be more cautious. If small arms and RCWS machine guns could mess up your aircraft, the player is forced to stay high. This also gives the ground units a better chance of disabling the aircraft. If players had to stay further away, BI could realistically model the damage of the guns, and then everyone would be happy (apart from those damned tab-lock missiles). The same goes for missiles. If BI fixed the modeling of the missiles as well as the jets damage model, AA missiles would be much more of a threat to aircraft, because right now it's like "ah, a missile is coming. oh shoot it hit me. well, I'm okay. uh oh, I took another. guess I better fly back to base." Whereas in DCS it's more of a *beep beep beep* "holy shit I'm going to die holy shit holy shit holy shit pop flares break left dump flares oh god why help…" *BOOM* "mayday! mayday! Uzi 1-1 is hit! My left engine is on fire and I'm losing hydraulic pressure fast! I lost power to all my systems! I'm punching out!" etc etc.

Properly modeled missiles makes for a much more interesting experience; the thought that if you try really hard you can evade the missile but if you fail you'll go down in a flaming ball of death makes for a much more interesting experience.

good thread

if anyone isstill playing A2, check out our missile pack (developed with myke) which has a lot more realistic missile behaviours, and can lead to some VERY interesting dogfights, especially with multipleflare ejectors on wings and tail on certain planes, and thrust vectoring manoeuvers. pooks new SAM's included (patriot and all kinds of russian SAM's) can also take you out from miles away.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?181303-BAFX-and-Rangemaster-mod-packs-released

we even have proper working AAA, and whe nyou fly through that, you know you're in trouble as CM's won't help you there!

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?181303-BAFX-and-Rangemaster-mod-packs-released&p=2859225&viewfull=1#post2859225

---------- Post added at 06:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:29 PM ----------

oh, and THIS wiki page may be enlightening

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/A3_Locking_Review

The problem with Arma's missiles is that they're unpredictable in the wrong way.

Yes, in real life missiles are very unpredictable, especially the passively guided, IR seeking variants. When you are being tracked by one, you just have to dump flares and hope for the best. The missile might hit you anyways. But at the same time, it varies greatly on other aspects that are more in your control. For example, in real life, flares typically come out of the underside of an aircraft. So turning your belly toward an incoming missile improves your chances of spoofing it. Real life missiles are predictably unpredictable if that makes any sense. It's clear that they are hell-bent on hitting you so you have to try your best to evade them. When it comes at you, it becomes a sudden struggle for dear life.

On the other hand, Arma missiles are unpredictably unpredictable. Sometimes you don't do anything at all to evade them, you just pop flares, and they miss. Sometimes you do the exact same thing and they hit. It seems to be genuinely random. Like a roll of the dice. The same goes for pulling maneuvers. It evades them almost every time, but sometimes they just hit you anyways. This means that when you hear the incoming missile warning, you think, "well shoot time to drop flares and see if I get hit" as opposed to in DCS where hearing the incoming missile warning means the next few seconds are going to be a fight for your life.

The other issue with this is that the consequence for getting his isn't high enough.

This actually applies to any damage done to jets. The way it is now, you're either dead or you can fly pretty much fine. This is a problem because it means jet pilots don't worry about getting hit. They can fly as close and low to the targets as they want. This means that BI has to nerf their weapons to hell (especially the guns) in order to make it fair. And as a result, pilots have to fly closer to kill their targets. And now we have an endless cycle of crappy balancing that results in useless and unrealistic jets.

In real life (and I'm using DCS as a source for this because I am assuming enough research went in to it to make it a reliable source), aircraft are far more fragile. Even taking just 1 bullet of medium caliber (12.7mm/.50cal and above) to the nose or frontal fuselage of the aircraft typically knocks out important systems, typically the CICU (controller for the displays in-cockpit). Following that (in terms of how easily it gets knocked out) are the CDU/EGI (GPS navigation systems) and the gun itself (if you take hits to the front of the nose). Fuel leaks often result from hits to the wings, and hits to the engine result in reduced engine power output (I assume from loss of pressure and/or damage to turbines in the engine). It only takes a few bullets to significantly wound the aircraft, knocking out many of its vital systems, and damaging engines. One well placed burst from AAA or another aircraft (sometimes even the .50 on top of a tank) is enough to render the aircraft almost completely FUBAR. The only reason you might not have to punch out is because the A-10 has the fantastic ability to be able to fly with only one engine, half the tail, and half of one wing missing.

If BI just made the damage model on fixed-wings better, pilots would have to be more cautious. If small arms and RCWS machine guns could mess up your aircraft, the player is forced to stay high. This also gives the ground units a better chance of disabling the aircraft. If players had to stay further away, BI could realistically model the damage of the guns, and then everyone would be happy (apart from those damned tab-lock missiles). The same goes for missiles. If BI fixed the modeling of the missiles as well as the jets damage model, AA missiles would be much more of a threat to aircraft, because right now it's like "ah, a missile is coming. oh shoot it hit me. well, I'm okay. uh oh, I took another. guess I better fly back to base." Whereas in DCS it's more of a *beep beep beep* "holy shit I'm going to die holy shit holy shit holy shit pop flares break left dump flares oh god why help…" *BOOM* "mayday! mayday! Uzi 1-1 is hit! My left engine is on fire and I'm losing hydraulic pressure fast! I lost power to all my systems! I'm punching out!" etc etc.

Properly modeled missiles makes for a much more interesting experience; the thought that if you try really hard you can evade the missile but if you fail you'll go down in a flaming ball of death makes for a much more interesting experience.

You can have your struggle, but since most people fly way under the top speed of the aircraft in Arma 3. You can expect to get hit without much manuvering ability.

You also have to look at the actual situation in Arma vs real life. In Arma 3, AA launchers both static and tanks are 4km range, your also going drastically slower then what some of those aircraft are capable of in real life. Almost every engagement with aircraft would be considered "low level" in a real combat zone. The distances are simply to short to have that typical Hollywood style of trying to outmaneuver a missile.

As for the helicopters, I talked to a guy at my local archery shop. He was a crewmember of a blackhawk for both invasions of Iraq. He often tell me how they would have holes through the entire helicopter with no actual damage to the internal systems. Just like tanks and any other armor, it depends on a lot more factors besides bullet size. DCS does a good job simulating more advanced things but honestly a helicopter can look like swiss cheese as most did in Vietnam and still fly perfectly fine.

some feedback from A2 experiments with missiles

we have missiles that can lock and kill you at 10km+ in our mod.

GBU39 glide bombs will travel up to 6km in game to their target if released properly.

in terms of closer ranges:

i snapped this after rolling out the way of an Sa2 in an A4

last night i had an SA15 coming right at me in a AV8, and i was chaffing and flaring, and thought, you know what, that missile is coming right at me, so at the very last minute i rolled over inverted onto my left side and pulled my nose up, and the missile passed under my wings armpit... man that was a moment.

we've also added multiple points for CM dispensers and they work a treat - the Su27, Su30 and Mi28 have wingtip pods that dispense extra CM's, and boy are they hard to hit in game.

some of the AAA and SAM's we've been developing

https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=5B54FC51A7917265&id=5B54FC51A7917265!4095

https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=5B54FC51A7917265&id=5B54FC51A7917265!3197

https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=5B54FC51A7917265&id=5B54FC51A7917265!1829

also our planes have real top speeds, some travel up to 2,400 km/h with afterburners

the one thing we cannot do is work out how to get the AI planes to fly at 5km+ in the air (at 10km they hit a glass ceiling and lose controls)

some of the planes do it from time to time but ive no idea how to translate this to other aircraft.