Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Question on AC damage

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Question on AC damage Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Question on AC damage - 7/3/2018 5:08:21 AM   
hasler

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 7/31/2017
Status: offline 		I have been play testing a scenario I am building, and I noticed some odd calcs with Aircraft Damage. Su-27s take 2-3 aim-9Ls to kill. I had a Mig-31 take 4 aim-9s out turn the f-16 on it and shoot it down. I also noticed the SU-27 often takes two Amraams to bring down. Is this the intended damage behavior? From everything I know about modern air combat surviving an AIM-9 or R-73 in a fighter is doable but rare. Surviving a Aim-120, Aim-7, R-77= go immediately buy a lottery ticket.
Post #: 1
RE: Question on AC damage - 7/3/2018 7:11:47 AM   
wild_Willie2


Posts: 2934
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
Status: offline 		Hi Hasler,

These results are basically unlucky dice rolls, but it must be said that two engine planes are more survivable then single engine ones so this would explain why the F16 went down after a single missile strike while the SU-27 sometimes needed two.

The Mig-31 has an enormous thrust to weight ratio and can accelerate like a bat out of hell, this will let it increase the engagement time of the incoming short range missiles to the point that these will have lost virtually all their fuel and are unable to manoeuvre anymore, making them easier to dodge.

A MIG-31 will almost never out manoeuvre an F-16, but if the MIG pilot is good enough and is carrying high boresight R-73 missiles while the F16 is stuck with an older sidewinder model, the fight could be more or less equal.
Look at the loadouts of the planes and the level of their pilots involved to confirm this theorie.

Tip: It is generally a bad idea to get any AC into heat seeker range of a similarly armed AC as these things are all round deadly. Once heat seekers start flying, every plane in range has a good chance of dying…. I have even seen F-22’s fall to AA-8 Aphid strikes launched from Su-24’s. It might be alluring to get into knife fighting range of enemy AC, but you will lose planes doing so. It’s much safer to just sit back and launch radar guided weapons at your enemy….


< Message edited by wild_Willie2 -- 7/3/2018 9:44:57 AM >

_____________________________

In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.

(in reply to hasler)
Post #: 2
RE: Question on AC damage - 7/3/2018 12:18:37 PM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline 		hasler < Hi, are you referring to evading missile attacks or surviving after missile impacts?

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to hasler)
Post #: 3
RE: Question on AC damage - 7/3/2018 12:40:58 PM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline 		The a/c damage aspect of the game is one of the neatest innovations. It's true that some planes can sustain more damage than others, but there is no guarantee that it will take two hits to bring the a/c down. Many, regardless of size, will go down with just one hit.

Another one of my personal favorites is the "No Communication" option. This is actually very interesting because, due to damage, a plane (or other unit) won't be able to communicate with other units on the same side. When that happens, you don't know if the plane has crashed or is merely trying to limp back home. A couple of times I have even had friendly units firing on the "newly detected" plane only to find out that the plane is actually one of their own, lacking communications. It is a great feature and adds lots of realism.

Doug

(in reply to hasler)
Post #: 4
RE: Question on AC damage - 7/3/2018 5:37:17 PM   
hasler

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 7/31/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

hasler < Hi, are you referring to evading missile attacks or surviving after missile impacts?


I am referring to survival after missile impact. The Mig-31 engagement is the most odd, as it took 4 AIM-9 hits and was still able to win the fight against the F-16 chasing it. With the Amraam so far I have not dropped a single SU-27 with one missile hit. These are the two Aircraft I have noticed this with.

Very few Mig-29s have survived an AIM-9 hit, and none have survived an AIM-120. The Same goes for Mig-23s and SU-24s.
Have I just been very unlucky with near-miss modeling where the AC took some shrapnel damage but was on the outer edge of the radius?

Weapons used that I noted this on are AIM-120A on F-15Cs, and AIM-9L on Norwegian F-16As. I have not closed to AIM-9M range with the F-15C yet to see if those preform any different.

Edit:
After checking the Database viewer I notice something very odd. The Database lists the AIM-9 series as having warhead 414 and putting out 1.26 DP. It also notes it has a 9.4kg warhead but seems to only give credit for 3.6kg?

Now for comparison sake I check the R-73 which has a smaller warhead and it does 2.62 DP and is listed as a full 7.4g. (warhead 282)

The Amraam warhead 284 is only given 2.7 DP which is basically the same destructive potential of an R-73 at three times the size.

I compared it to an R-77(warhead 660) which does 7.87 DP.

So what is going on here? Is the Database viewer wrong, am i misinterpreting the warhead data, or are Nato missiles really doing half the damage of their Russian counterparts?



Here is a an excerpt showing the normal course of the engagements:

9:16:50 PM - 9:16:50 PM - Contact Su-27S Flanker B #2177 has been lost.

9:16:43 PM - 9:16:43 PM - Gun (20mm/85 M61A1 Vulcan Burst [100 rnds]) is attacking Tiger #21 with a base-Ph of 70%. Base-Ph adjusted for distance: 35%. Tiger #21 has nominal agility: 4.5, adjusted for altitude: 1.7. Agility adjusted for proficiency (Regular): 1.36. Aircraft has a weight fraction of 0.19 - Agility adjusted to 1.2. Aircraft has 22.8% fuselage/structural damage - Agility adjusted to 0.93. Agility adjusted for tail-on impact effect: 0.5. Final agility modifier: -5%. Final Ph: 30%. Result: 29 - HIT


9:16:41 PM - 9:16:41 PM - Weapon: AIM-9L Sidewinder #13615 is attacking Tiger #21 (Su-27S Flanker B) with a base PH of 85%. Final PH: 85%. Result: 30 - HIT


9:16:40 PM - 9:16:40 PM - Event: 'Kiev Passive Sonar' has been fired.


9:16:40 PM - 9:16:40 PM - Event: 'Baku Passive Sonar' has been fired.


9:16:40 PM - 9:16:40 PM - Event: 'Kuz Passive Sonar' has been fired.


9:16:38 PM - 9:16:38 PM - Weapon: AIM-9L Sidewinder #13613 is attacking Tiger #21 (Su-27S Flanker B) with a base PH of 85%. Tiger #21 has nominal agility: 4.5, adjusted for altitude: 2.3. Agility adjusted for proficiency (Regular): 1.84. Aircraft has a weight fraction of 0.19 - Agility adjusted to 1.63. Aircraft has 12.1% fuselage/structural damage - Agility adjusted to 1.43. Agility adjusted for rear-oblique impact effect: 1.2. Final agility modifier: -12%. Final PH: 73%. Result: 95 - MISS


9:16:38 PM - 9:16:38 PM - Decoy (Generic Flare Salvo [4x Cartridges, Single Spectral]; Tech: Single-spectral IR) from Tiger #21 is attempting to seduce sensor: IR Seeker (Tech: Dual-spectral IR)(Guiding weapon: AIM-9L Sidewinder #13613). Final probability: 10%. Result: 94 - FAILURE


9:16:32 PM - 9:16:32 PM - Weapon: AIM-9L Sidewinder #13612 is attacking Tiger #21 (Su-27S Flanker B) with a base PH of 85%. Tiger #21 has nominal agility: 4.5, adjusted for altitude: 1.7. Agility adjusted for proficiency (Regular): 1.36. Aircraft has a weight fraction of 0.2 - Agility adjusted to 1.2. Agility adjusted for rear-oblique impact effect: 1. Final agility modifier: -10%. Final PH: 75%. Result: 21 - HIT


9:16:32 PM - 9:16:32 PM - Decoy (Generic Flare Salvo [4x Cartridges, Single Spectral]; Tech: Single-spectral IR) from Tiger #21 is attempting to seduce sensor: IR Seeker (Tech: Dual-spectral IR)(Guiding weapon: AIM-9L Sidewinder #13612). Final probability: 10%. Result: 32 - FAILURE

You can clearly see the SU-27 takes two hits and has to be gunned down and was only at 22.8% damage after two expanding rod warheads ripped through it.

< Message edited by hasler -- 7/4/2018 3:34:27 AM >

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 5
RE: Question on AC damage - 7/5/2018 4:17:35 AM   
Rory Noonan

 

Posts: 2816
Joined: 12/18/2014
From: Brooklyn, NY
Status: offline 		There were some erroneous numbers in the warhead entries, thanks for bringing them to our attention.

Fixed for DB3k v 475

_____________________________


(in reply to hasler)
Post #: 6
RE: Question on AC damage - 7/5/2018 7:04:41 AM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline 		Some background info:

Aircraft damage in CMANO - as originally implemented in v1.12

Subsequent refinements in v1.13 (section "New in v1.13")

An important point: When an aircraft receives significant structural damage, it automatically RTBs so it effectively constitutes a "mission kill" (and depending on the extent of its damage it may never again become available before the scenario ends, so a "length-of-war kill"). Furthermore, an initial impact may not immediately bring an AC down but may start a fire which can make the aircraft explode shortly afterwards.

This is why in RL many shooters wait at least a few seconds between missile impact and next firing, to check if the target will shift course/speed (ie. RTB) or disintegrate (explosion) before spending another weapon on it. Some players may overlook this because they shoot multiple weapons to begin with, or they are busy with the bigger picture.

< Message edited by Dimitris -- 7/5/2018 11:35:45 AM >

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to Rory Noonan)
Post #: 7
RE: Question on AC damage - 7/5/2018 10:00:20 AM   
c3k

 

Posts: 369
Joined: 4/25/2017
Status: offline 		As well, the speed of a damaged aircraft should drop...massively. Continued flight at 600 kts or greater with skin damage would likely result in a de-skinned aircraft. ;) If still flyable, damaged aircraft would "limp" back home at a low speed to reduce further deterioration and the load on the airframe. (Damaged spars tend to fall apart under g load, for example.)



Great catch on the warhead issue.

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 8
RE: Question on AC damage - 7/5/2018 1:08:43 PM   
kevinkins


Posts: 2257
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		Agree. Nice detective work. The database is so massive insidious things are bound to creep in.

(in reply to c3k)
Post #: 9
RE: Question on AC damage - 7/5/2018 3:25:55 PM   
Rebel Yell


Posts: 470
Joined: 6/21/2003
From: The Woodlands, TX USA
Status: offline 		Good detective work indeed.

Explains a lot...

_____________________________

I used to enjoy these forums. So many people that need the green dot now.

(in reply to kevinkins)
Post #: 10
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Question on AC damage Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.250