RE: Suggestion regarding missile hit mechanics

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Suggestion regarding missile hit mechanics

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 >> RE: Suggestion regarding missile hit mechanics

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Suggestion regarding missile hit mechanics - 8/27/2015 8:10:01 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

They don't swim with cannon kills because of the environments they are fight in...

1) Outdated enemy air strategy
2) Outdated enemy equipment
3) ROEs that aligned with missile kills
4) 100% logistics for the air environment

That last one could be the main reason to have guns...if a full blown war comes about and your missile kill ratio is around 30-40%, you could very easily run out of missiles. That could be especially true if the war disrupts the supply chain of critical electronic missile components for a short time.

I am not an advocate for some kind of return to WW1 dogfighting. I am just pointing out that you almost never fight the war you expect. You need to prepare for it not going your way. Throughout history, depending on one path to success leads to the risk of defeat.

(in reply to Coiler12)

Post #: 31

RE: Suggestion regarding missile hit mechanics - 8/27/2015 8:16:38 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckfinite
Hmm, I hadn't thought of this. What kind of aircraft features improves performance in doing these maneuvers? I understand how to improve the qualities of #1, but less so #2.

A few:
* Large thrust and SEP (bleed as little speed as possible on the sharp break and recover it as fast as possible)
* Large wing (use aerobraking for the sharp turn) and tail surfaces (to impart the necessary turning momentum)
* Thrust vectoring, same reason
* Compact, "boxy" load-bearing aircraft structure to withstand high Q (compare YF-22 with YF-23)
* High G tolerance (both AC and pilot)

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to ckfinite)

Post #: 32

RE: Suggestion regarding missile hit mechanics - 8/27/2015 11:17:19 PM

jdkbph

Posts: 339
Joined: 2/11/2007
From: CT, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheechako

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0

Here's the perspective of a hornet, super hornet(as a Top Gun instructor), viper, F-22 and F-35 pilot. He also did a tour as a FAC in Iraq. It's probably one of the best interviews I've seen explaining what is 5th gen - and why it's a big deal.

Nice. Thanks for posting that.

JD

(in reply to Cheechako)

Post #: 33

RE: Suggestion regarding missile hit mechanics - 8/28/2015 7:56:54 PM

Zaslon

Posts: 283
Joined: 6/14/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckfinite

quote:

I am talking about the lockheed's classification which many people use today (they forgot the super-agility which was dropped by Lockheed when the F-35 enter in the field).

Super maneuverability is not a game-changing feature the way LO is. It's been present since the 3rd generation in various forms, and has been especially prevalent in Russian 4th generation designs. Why? Because the Russians don't have the ability to keep up with the West in terms of electronics or stealth coatings, as demonstrated with their eternal AESA trouble and PAK-FA maladies, and need to sell it for all they've got. It's only really useful in the low-speed endgame, when you have a single chance and then you're dead. Agility is not a deciding factor in determining which generation an aircraft fits into.

The idea behind the 5th generation moniker is that it denotes aircraft that incorporate the more modern network based sensor model, as well as stealth. This looks to be a very good distinction going forwards, too. Look at the difference between the Eurofighter, the Gripen, and the Rafale, and what's coming next. We have the ATD-X, the PAK-FA, the J-20 and J-31, K-X, and a lot besides. These aircraft are fundamentally different than the eurocanards because they have stealth functionality and systems designed around that stealth capability. VLO capability is a good distinction, because it draws a clear and easy to distinguish line between these generations. Lockheed may have made the term up, but these future aircraft projects are demonstrating that their criterion has a lot of merit as a distinguishing feature.

Yeah, we consider that a MiG-29 and a F-15 are both 4th gen designs. Both designs are very very different. They followed different phisolophies, use different technologies. If we apply the same rigid criteria that we use in the 5th gen, the Soviet fighters should a 3.5, 3++... But nopes. MiG-29 and Su-27 are both 4th gen fighters.

There are a fixation about VLO. If the fighter have VLO you are 5th gen, if not it's a 4th gen, 4,5 or 4++. It's a very rigid criteria that was never used in previous generations.

So why? It's very curious, specially when maneuverability, top speed, range, BVR capacity... are intrinsic parameters of each fighter (only depends of the fighter). But VLO isn't an intrinsic parameter of each fighter. Maybe, ATM VLO is an illusion if the new S-400 can work in a bistatic mode for example. We know that PAK FA and Su-35S have two radars, one working in X-band an a wing radar working at L Band...So We cannot treat VLO in the same way that we treat other parameters. Now F-22 can have VLO, but tomorrow nobody knows.

We don't know if the new Chinese designs are VLO, we think that but only based in the angular shape of the fuselage. And also we think that the lack of an angular shaped fuselage in the Eurocanards means that they aren't stealth. Stealth isn't an absolute parameter (Either you have or you haven't).

< Message edited by Zaslon -- 8/28/2015 8:57:19 PM >

_____________________________

Kids think about Iran and Amateurs think about Russia, but professionals think about China

(in reply to ckfinite)

Post #: 34

RE: Suggestion regarding missile hit mechanics - 8/29/2015 1:58:23 AM

ExNusquam

Posts: 513
Joined: 3/4/2014
From: Washington, D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

So why? It's very curious, specially when maneuverability, top speed, range, BVR capacity... are intrinsic parameters of each fighter (only depends of the fighter). But VLO isn't an intrinsic parameter of each fighter. Maybe, ATM VLO is an illusion if the new S-400 can work in a bistatic mode for example. We know that PAK FA and Su-35S have two radars, one working in X-band an a wing radar working at L Band...So We cannot treat VLO in the same way that we treat other parameters. Now F-22 can have VLO, but tomorrow nobody knows.

What we do know, however, is that VLO designs reduce detection radius, regardless of the radar equipment being used. In C:MANO, the F-22 is detected by the PAK-FA's wing radar at 31 nm, vs 119 nm for an F-15C. This represents a 90% reduction in search area for the wing radar. So VLO, even if less effective in certain bands, will still change things.

quote:

We don't know if the new Chinese designs are VLO, we think that but only based in the angular shape of the fuselage. And also we think that the lack of an angular shaped fuselage in the Eurocanards means that they aren't stealth. Stealth isn't an absolute parameter (Either you have or you haven't).

Actually, we have a very good idea that the J-20 is a VLO design: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2011-03.html

You are correct, stealth operates on a spectrum, so RCS reductions can have a tangible effect even if they don't approach "VLO" status. So while the many new 4.5 gen aircraft like Super Hornet include "stealth features", they won't yield the same reductions in search area/difficulty in detection as something that is designed from the ground up to include those features.

(in reply to Zaslon)

Post #: 35

RE: Suggestion regarding missile hit mechanics - 9/1/2015 6:47:32 PM

Zaslon

Posts: 283
Joined: 6/14/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

quote:

So why? It's very curious, specially when maneuverability, top speed, range, BVR capacity... are intrinsic parameters of each fighter (only depends of the fighter). But VLO isn't an intrinsic parameter of each fighter. Maybe, ATM VLO is an illusion if the new S-400 can work in a bistatic mode for example. We know that PAK FA and Su-35S have two radars, one working in X-band an a wing radar working at L Band...So We cannot treat VLO in the same way that we treat other parameters. Now F-22 can have VLO, but tomorrow nobody knows.

What we do know, however, is that VLO designs reduce detection radius, regardless of the radar equipment being used. In C:MANO, the F-22 is detected by the PAK-FA's wing radar at 31 nm, vs 119 nm for an F-15C. This represents a 90% reduction in search area for the wing radar. So VLO, even if less effective in certain bands, will still change things.

The laws of physics are the same for all. Radar equipment is fundamental for RCS. Power emission, wavelength and polarization of the wave are parameters for RCS formula.

Here Carlo Kopp wrote about VHF radars
Passive radar and the future of the US military airpower by Westra.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

quote:

We don't know if the new Chinese designs are VLO, we think that but only based in the angular shape of the fuselage. And also we think that the lack of an angular shaped fuselage in the Eurocanards means that they aren't stealth. Stealth isn't an absolute parameter (Either you have or you haven't).

Actually, we have a very good idea that the J-20 is a VLO design: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2011-03.html

You are correct, stealth operates on a spectrum, so RCS reductions can have a tangible effect even if they don't approach "VLO" status. So while the many new 4.5 gen aircraft like Super Hornet include "stealth features", they won't yield the same reductions in search area/difficulty in detection as something that is designed from the ground up to include those features.

Thanks for the link.

We haven't a very good idea. We can suppose. The Authors present the study as a 'preliminary assesment'. A preliminary assesment never can be seen as an evidence, fact or absolute statement. It's more than a hint, a clue.

Also in the conclusion, the authors wrote:

In conclusion, this study has established through Physical Optics simulation across nine frequency bands, that no fundamental obstacles exist in the shaping design of the J-20 prototype, which would preclude its development into a genuine Very Low Observable design.
They aren't saying that the J-20 is an VLO design.

< Message edited by Zaslon -- 9/1/2015 7:51:06 PM >

_____________________________

Kids think about Iran and Amateurs think about Russia, but professionals think about China

(in reply to ExNusquam)

Post #: 36

RE: Suggestion regarding missile hit mechanics - 9/1/2015 7:02:30 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

I think the main problem is they drafting boards and T-squares to design parts of the J-20.

(in reply to Zaslon)

Post #: 37

RE: Suggestion regarding missile hit mechanics - 9/2/2015 12:26:32 AM

ExNusquam

Posts: 513
Joined: 3/4/2014
From: Washington, D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zaslon
The laws of physics are the same for all. Radar equipment is fundamental for RCS. Power emission, wavelength and polarization of the wave are parameters for RCS formula.

Here Carlo Kopp wrote about VHF radars
Passive radar and the future of the US military airpower by Westra.

VHF radars offer better performance against stealth targets that are optimized for the FCR bands (S/X). However, better performance does not mean that they can detect stealth targets at the same ranges as non-stealth targets. Detection in these bands is the result of resonance off of certain aircraft features, and even if these features are not optimized for the VHF band, they will still offer some use. Recall that in the F-117 shootdown, the F-117 was detected at a range of 30-37 miles (by a VHF radar), much closer than if the the F-117 had been conventionally shaped. Because effective search area decreases with the square of detection range, this reduction represents a significant reduction in search area.

quote:

Thanks for the link.

We haven't a very good idea. We can suppose. The Authors present the study as a 'preliminary assesment'. A preliminary assesment never can be seen as an evidence, fact or absolute statement. It's more than a hint, a clue.

Also in the conclusion, the authors wrote:

In conclusion, this study has established through Physical Optics simulation across nine frequency bands, that no fundamental obstacles exist in the shaping design of the J-20 prototype, which would preclude its development into a genuine Very Low Observable design.
They aren't saying that the J-20 is an VLO design.

I believe you are misreading the context of the conclusion. The article was written in response to initial responses that claimed that the J-20 prototype could never be a VLO design because of it's engines, or it's shaping, etc. So while Kopp is saying that the prototype is not VLO, the production variant can be build to that standard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I think the main problem is they drafting boards and T-squares to design parts of the J-20.

If you assume the drafting boards are 1m^2, how far away could you detect them with a VHF radar?

(in reply to Zaslon)

Post #: 38

RE: Suggestion regarding missile hit mechanics - 9/2/2015 11:22:11 AM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

Depends if they are wood or plastic. also the hinges are metal and would be a huge factor in RCS.

(in reply to ExNusquam)

Post #: 39

Yeah! gangsta - 9/2/2015 7:33:03 PM

Zaslon

Posts: 283
Joined: 6/14/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zaslon
The laws of physics are the same for all. Radar equipment is fundamental for RCS. Power emission, wavelength and polarization of the wave are parameters for RCS formula.

Here Carlo Kopp wrote about VHF radars
Passive radar and the future of the US military airpower by Westra.

VHF radars offer better performance against stealth targets that are optimized for the FCR bands (S/X). However, better performance does not mean that they can detect stealth targets at the same ranges as non-stealth targets. Detection in these bands is the result of resonance off of certain aircraft features, and even if these features are not optimized for the VHF band, they will still offer some use. Recall that in the F-117 shootdown, the F-117 was detected at a range of 30-37 miles (by a VHF radar), much closer than if the the F-117 had been conventionally shaped. Because effective search area decreases with the square of detection range, this reduction represents a significant reduction in search area.

Exactly, they can detect stealth targets at the same ranges as non-stealth targets, it's a possibility, not an absolute statement. They can lost his advantage. Remember that there are some parameters in addition to the wavelength.

The F-117 was tracked by a older Soviet P-18 radar without field mods.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

quote:

Thanks for the link.

We haven't a very good idea. We can suppose. The Authors present the study as a 'preliminary assesment'. A preliminary assesment never can be seen as an evidence, fact or absolute statement. It's more than a hint, a clue.

Also in the conclusion, the authors wrote:

In conclusion, this study has established through Physical Optics simulation across nine frequency bands, that no fundamental obstacles exist in the shaping design of the J-20 prototype, which would preclude its development into a genuine Very Low Observable design.
They aren't saying that the J-20 is an VLO design.

I believe you are misreading the context of the conclusion. The article was written in response to initial responses that claimed that the J-20 prototype could never be a VLO design because of it's engines, or it's shaping, etc. So while Kopp is saying that the prototype is not VLO, the production variant can be build to that standard.

So... we haven't a very good idea that the J-20 is a VLO design. It's a posibility.

_____________________________

Kids think about Iran and Amateurs think about Russia, but professionals think about China

(in reply to ExNusquam)

Post #: 40

RE: Yeah! gangsta - 9/2/2015 7:46:21 PM

ckfinite

Posts: 377
Joined: 7/20/2013
Status: offline

quote:

Exactly, they can detect stealth targets at the same ranges as non-stealth targets, it's a possibility, not an absolute statement. They can lost his advantage.

This is not at all what ExNusquam said. To repeat it in a slightly more direct fashion, the P-18 can detect non-stealth targets at distances of up to about 100 miles. The F-117's stealth features reduced this to 30 miles, and VHF stealth technology has improved substantially since that point.

Fundamentally, stealth works by reducing receiver signal to noise ratio (SNR). The signal returned from the LO aircraft is smaller than the signal from a conventional aircraft under all circumstances. Because you can't pull information from thin air,this means that you always have reduced detection distance against a stealth aircraft, or more precisely, your detection distance is proportional to radar cross section of the target aircraft. No clever processing will let you get around this that won't also increase the range against non-stealth aircraft, as the non-stealth aircraft's SNR will be equal at longer range than the stealth aircraft's.

quote:

Remember that there are some parameters in addition to the wavelength.

Importantly, wavelength is the only one that actually lets you change the target cross section. The other parameters are all impacted by the SNR reduction as a result of the reduced RCS, to the point where at range you are unable to differentiate the stealth aircraft from the noise floor. By changing the wavelength, you can change the effective RCS of the target, potentially increasing the receiver SNR.

(in reply to Zaslon)

Post #: 41

RE: Suggestion regarding missile hit mechanics - 12/2/2015 10:09:21 AM

ColonelMolerat

Posts: 479
Joined: 9/23/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

There are two kinds of "agility" to consider.

1) Supreme nose-authority (to rapidly point and launch a SR-AAM) as exhibited by e.g. the F-18, Su-27 & MiG-29. (F-22 and Su-30/35 w/TVC even more so)

What's 'nose-authority'? The ability of the nose to point in the right direction?

< Message edited by ColonelMolerat -- 12/2/2015 11:12:06 AM >

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 42

RE: Suggestion regarding missile hit mechanics - 12/2/2015 10:24:41 AM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColonelMolerat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

There are two kinds of "agility" to consider.

1) Supreme nose-authority (to rapidly point and launch a SR-AAM) as exhibited by e.g. the F-18, Su-27 & MiG-29. (F-22 and Su-30/35 w/TVC even more so)

What's 'nose-authority'? The ability of the nose to point in the right direction?