Ugh...AHMs in This Game...

[PFunk]

They are a total immersion killer.  You literally are blown out of the sky with little warning.  You get the tone that you're being watched.  God help you if you miss the verbal cue from your wingman to let you know you've been fired on.  You cannot tell if you've evaded it.

 

Is there any, ANY way to add an RWR tone to these things?  Otherwise, I'm about to make everything that isn't an IR-guided missile a semi-active radar homing missile.

 

 

[Fubar512]

 

 

Is there any, ANY way to add an RWR tone to these things?  Otherwise, I'm about to make everything that isn't an IR-guided missile a semi-active radar homing missile.

 

 

 

Unfortunately not.  Unlike an aircraft or ground model, where you can state radar frequency and signal strength values, all radar-guided missiles in this series simply have statements allowing them to match guidance frequency values of their launch or host platforms.

 

As such, the AHMs do not really "emit" a signal in-game, and annoyingly (as you've already mentioned), guide effortlessly straight to their targets with nothing more than an initial paint from their launch platforms.

[PFunk]

Then I'm changing everything to SAHMs or simply removing the AHMs because that's just killing the game.

 

According to my research, AHMs might not give a warning on launch, but the minute their own radar seeker goes active, you would know.

 

You know what view I miss from old sims?  Jane's USAF and IAF used to have a very handy player-to-incoming-weapon view that could help you evade a missile.

[+Dave]

AHM's = aim, shoot and destroy. That is why the AIM-120 is called "Fetch em Fido" One thing you could do is lower their PK in the weapon editor. Like right now my AIM-120D-1 has a 98% PK. You could set them to 65% and see what happens. 

[+CrazyhorseB34]

PITBULL.

[Do335]

wow that is a bummer. i never faced ARH equipped redfor come to think of it, but fired a lot of fox3s for sure. isn't there some other way besides making all fox3s into fox1s?

i guess for a modern conflict like black sea, making the opfor SARH only isn't acceptable.... how about extra countermeasures for the player only, like BOL for the f-14s and -15s. AI can't use them but AI always gets 6th sense of an inbound missile, so that balances it out a bit for the player. also doesn't EricJ's superbug pack model the ALE-50, that thing goes on F-16s as well. towed decoys are supposed to be the prime counter against ARHs.

 

fwiw i know 2 things, RWR nowadays can not only detect the missile seeker radar, but also the datalink between missile and launch platform. reason it doesn't display that is because it will get confusing when multiple missiles are in the air. otoh some US FMS programs didn't include the rwr's ability to detect seeker heads, so some foreign operators didn't have it, therefore you can say SF2 isn't entirely wrong ofc i'm not one of the real guys but just heard from them, so correct me by all means.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Do335

[PFunk]

The problem is you have no awareness of the missile going active.  You can have all the bloom chaff you could carry, it probably won't help you much.

 

Modern RWRs would know when an active homing radar is coming at it the minute the missile goes terminal.  Granted, you won't get much warning, but you would know.  

 

It's just the idiosyncrasies of this title.  You work around it if you can.

[Caesar]

The BOL dispensers should work in the F-14 at least; we moved them to the data.ini for all (96) and beyond Turkeys, which was the big issue for the AI.

 

I think the frustration comes from the fact that the game only cares about the launching aircraft's radar, not the missile's terminal guidance radar.  If a platform fires at you in TWS, you're not going to get any warning other than that there is a radar emitting out there, but once the missile goes terminal, its own internal radar kicks on, and that's when you'd get the track warning.  The game doesn't do this.  I remember doing the experiment over a year back with USN F-14's vs. IRIAF F-14's.  You'd have the search warning going, then the AI would fire, and you could actually tell by the warning cutting off for a second, then it'd come back on before the AI fired again.  So, theoretically, you DO get a warning, you just have to hope the RWR cuts out when its in the middle of making a search warning tone.

[Do335]

The BOL dispensers should work in the F-14 at least; we moved them to the data.ini for all (96) and beyond Turkeys, which was the big issue for the AI.

yes Caesar, but i'm saying some additional chaffs on the rails. For one hand you get SARH Phoenixes/Slammers/Adders, or, you get some extra chaffs on your aircraft to help foil missiles (meanwhile, say, your AI wingies don't get the unrealistically high amount of chaffs as to maintain game balance). I just think.... the latter is the lesser of the 2 evils. but oh well neither is good enough when it comes down to it, as per PFunk...

Edited October 15, 2014 by Do335

[Fubar512]

You all must remember that the intent of the series is to model aircraft, weapons, and avionics from 1950-ish up until 1982 or so.

[saisran]

AHM Basically fire and Forget. So this doesn't bother me either. Anyway, Caesar explains you do get some warning. You just have to guessed wher and how far the missile was launched and what type so you can act accordingly. The thing about AHm is they are launched from quite a distance which gives you time to maneuver by either going tree top level, beam it or go high. 

[PFunk]

You all must remember that the intent of the series is to model aircraft, weapons, and avionics from 1950-ish up until 1982 or so.

 

Yeah.  I probably shouldn't be flying the more modern stuff, should I?

[macelena]

I don´t fly much after 1982 because of all-aspect missiles, mainly, a bit of an spoiler, but i could live with the issue of AHMs, it doesn´t make Tomcats unbeatable at least

[+daddyairplanes]

i fly upto around '92,  but old school mud moving.  even Slammers have a hard time tracking you 300 ft AGL or lower. Great White Hope or Russian gear as set up in game?  forget about it...

[+Dave]

Yeah.  I probably shouldn't be flying the more modern stuff, should I?

 

 

I don't think that is what Fubar was implying. I think he meant that TK threw AHM's after it was requested but didn't spend much time on their development. Thus the problems you encountered.

[Stratos]

I don't think that is what Fubar was implying. I think he meant that TK threw AHM's after it was requested but didn't spend much time on their development. Thus the problems you encountered.

 

The same can be said about A-G avionics, EOS, NVG...

[Wrench]

[Stratos]

 

You're right, sorry. It will not happen again.

[EricJ]

I've found out years ago that sometimes even Floggers don't get hit by AMRAAMs of any variety (even D models) as much as people think.  Then again I usually fire at Rmax so by the time it reaches the Floggers it's out of energy but closer... yeah they hit.

[saisran]

Besides. AHM in this game aren't really that reliable. try Firing a Phoenix Volley at 4 different targets. most of the time you'll get 1 kills out of 4 missile launched. 4/4 is quite rare. Stock AIM-54 also usually just fall of the rail dead. Another factor to consider is that. if your aircraft only has a detection range of 40nm shouldn't you be able to know your being fired upon from 70nm?

[PFunk]

I don't think that is what Fubar was implying. I think he meant that TK threw AHM's after it was requested but didn't spend much time on their development. Thus the problems you encountered.

No, I was serious, I wasn't trying to be a wiseass (you'll know it when it happens) I was really thinking I need to remember this game highlights Cold War era planes.

[+Dave]

I knew you weren't being a wise ass. But you also bring up a good point. 

[JediMaster]

Of course, the Phoenix was designed to take out bombers and old-school cruise missiles that were the size of fighters but flew straight and level with no CM or avoidance. So if you have any success rate using them against a manned fighter, especially one with chaff or ECM, that was unintended by its designers.

Fleet defense meant bomber intercept, not taking out a MiG at 90nm.

[Caesar]

Of course, the Phoenix was designed to take out bombers and old-school cruise missiles that were the size of fighters but flew straight and level with no CM or avoidance. So if you have any success rate using them against a manned fighter, especially one with chaff or ECM, that was unintended by its designers.

Fleet defense meant bomber intercept, not taking out a MiG at 90nm.

 

That's a mostly true statement.  Phoenix WAS designed to take down bombers and cruise missiles, but those bombers absolutely had jammers on them and multiple OT&E tests had to defeat powerful ECM to include pulsed interference.  The missile WAS tested against maneuvering targets as well.  While it wasn't the original intent, Phoenix was better at hitting maneuvering targets than contemporary versions of the Sidewinder or Sparrow, as proven in 1973 when one loaded over 18g to ram itself through a QF-86 in a 6g pull for a kinetic kill after chasing it down from 10 miles aft.  RADM Gillcrist considered that a significant step forward, since the maneuver tested had always been a successful defense against air-to-air missiles.  Something we forget is that neither Sidewinder nor Sparrow were originally designed to take out fighters, either: both were meant to shoot down bombers, and it showed in Vietnam.  It was only with significant improvements to the guidance systems, warheads and motors that the AIM-9 and AIM-7 became effective for downing maneuvering fighters.  So, while it is true that Phoenix was not designed as a fighter killer, it absolutely can take down an enemy fighter, and defeating an enemy through jamming WAS a requirement for the missile.

[EricJ]

As I found out during an ECM test in the Super Hornet, the F-14D_06 if I remember correctly had that kind of power to burn through my ECM at like... 90 miles?  So it had the capability in-game at least if it was reasonably reflecting the power of the jammer.