Alex6714 wrote:Something that needs to be looked into. In game I don´t think its possible. Irl I think radar guidad missiles can be launched without lock and then the lock aquired, but I am not sure if thats only ground or airborne aswell.
Well AMRAAM can aquire targets after launch.
It became autonomus and lock the first target in sight.
But i dont know if the pilot can select which target to aquire.
He probably can because i know that AMRAAM can be data- linked even with AWAC.
Remember that US pilot who was shot down in kosovo and managed to eject , land safely and escape from serbian territory ? he was shot by a serbian Strela that fired the missile without lock/radar at first and then activated radar 2-3 seconds before impact. Thats an example i can think of.
[R-CON]marcoelnk wrote:Remember that US pilot who was shot down in kosovo and managed to eject , land safely and escape from serbian territory ? he was shot by a serbian Strela that fired the missile without lock/radar at first and then activated radar 2-3 seconds before impact. Thats an example i can think of.
Yeah thats the example I was thinking of in my post. Seems it can be done in the air also then from the other post.
"Today's forecast calls for 30mm HE rain with a slight chance of hellfires"
"oh, they're fire and forget all right...they're fired then they forget where the target is"
[R-CON]marcoelnk wrote:Remember that US pilot who was shot down in kosovo and managed to eject , land safely and escape from serbian territory ? he was shot by a serbian Strela that fired the missile without lock/radar at first and then activated radar 2-3 seconds before impact. Thats an example i can think of.
ye small problem is you can't do that ingame
The only thing you can do afaik is have the missile launch with locking or non locking, once its launched it can't change.
You can launched it locked without having any target locked onto (much like our laser guided bombs now) and as soon as they come into range of a target then then track it but if you launched a missile in a non-seeking state it will just dumb fire pretty much. Not sure if I've explained that very well but basically, you can't have a missile dumb fire then 1/2 way though its flight change it to lock onto a target on the bf2 engine like your example in kosovo.
[R-CON]marcoelnk wrote:Remember that US pilot who was shot down in kosovo and managed to eject , land safely and escape from serbian territory ? he was shot by a serbian Strela that fired the missile without lock/radar at first and then activated radar 2-3 seconds before impact. Thats an example i can think of.
[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:ye small problem is you can't do that ingame
The only thing you can do afaik is have the missile launch with locking or non locking, once its launched it can't change.
You can launched it locked without having any target locked onto (much like our laser guided bombs now) and as soon as they come into range of a target then then track it but if you launched a missile in a non-seeking state it will just dumb fire pretty much. Not sure if I've explained that very well but basically, you can't have a missile dumb fire then 1/2 way though its flight change it to lock onto a target on the bf2 engine like your example in kosovo.
Sure you can. Its not like that in PR atm but it can be made so. Not that it will benefit greatly because it might increase TKs etc and its not always reliable so its a hard balance (something we are trying in CA).
"Today's forecast calls for 30mm HE rain with a slight chance of hellfires"
"oh, they're fire and forget all right...they're fired then they forget where the target is"
Alex6714 wrote:Sure you can. Its not like that in PR atm but it can be made so. Not that it will benefit greatly because it might increase TKs etc and its not always reliable so its a hard balance (something we are trying in CA).
I mean not launching the missile in a state where it can lock onto targets, like we have the laser guided bombs from I mean from a dumb fire state (ie, even if there was a target in range of it it wouldn't lock onto it) to locking onto the target in mid flight? Are you sure that's possible?
[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:I mean not launching the missile in a state where it can lock onto targets, like we have the laser guided bombs from I mean from a dumb fire state (ie, even if there was a target in range of it it wouldn't lock onto it) to locking onto the target in mid flight? Are you sure that's possible?
That I don´t know. I doubt it. Misunderstood a bit there.
"Today's forecast calls for 30mm HE rain with a slight chance of hellfires"
"oh, they're fire and forget all right...they're fired then they forget where the target is"
[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:got any more examples or info on it?
I just mean that people hardly use them in the AG role unless they are desperate. Since you can't change your loadout to suit the situation (removing fuel tanks and some AA missiles for LGBs or vice versa) asking people to follow rigidly forced behavior is counter productive for a sandbox situation.
i think what he's saying isn't to remove bombs from the existing fighter, but to ADD one fighter that doesnt have bombs keeping everything else the same, thus increasing protection for the CAS craft, while sparing infantry and armor from another big bomb but keeping the additional fear of which plane has the bomb and of course the need to take cover from guns in the sky.
Bringerof_D wrote:i think what he's saying isn't to remove bombs from the existing fighter, but to ADD one fighter that doesnt have bombs keeping everything else the same, thus increasing protection for the CAS craft, while sparing infantry and armor from another big bomb but keeping the additional fear of which plane has the bomb and of course the need to take cover from guns in the sky.
Well put. PS. regarding this theoretical fighter having nothing to do for a while when the enemy planes are shot down. Whats so wrong about having him simply land and stay grounded until hes needed again? IRL you wouldn't always have an air superiority fighter constantly patrolling a sky you know you control when you also know the enemy has no air capability.
Regarding using heat seeking missiles against ground targets - most ground targets have engines (tanks, APCs, jeeps, boats etc.) so surely an IR guided missile can be locked on to any heat source - I wouldn't have thought the missile could tell if it's an aircraft or not.
Although, thinking about it, I guess an aircraft's heat signature it *a lot* hotter (and bigger?) than a tank's engine/exhaust, so it would be harder for a missile to lock onto say a tank.
StuTika wrote:Regarding using heat seeking missiles against ground targets - most ground targets have engines (tanks, APCs, jeeps, boats etc.) so surely an IR guided missile can be locked on to any heat source - I wouldn't have thought the missile could tell if it's an aircraft or not.
Although, thinking about it, I guess an aircraft's heat signature it *a lot* hotter (and bigger?) than a tank's engine/exhaust, so it would be harder for a missile to lock onto say a tank.
Stu.
hilariously enough since the Abrams tank is run with a jet engine, you can lock a stinger missile onto it. i don't know if this also applies to other tanks, or if it's common but that's the one i've heard of thus far in terms of thermal loocking missiles going for tanks. even if so it's probably only short range.
Bringerof_D wrote:hilariously enough since the Abrams tank is run with a jet engine, you can lock a stinger missile onto it. i don't know if this also applies to other tanks, or if it's common but that's the one i've heard of thus far in terms of thermal loocking missiles going for tanks. even if so it's probably only short range.
And would be hilariously ineffective as stingers (as well as most antiaircraft missles, there are some exceptions, like StarStreak) have a fragmentation warhead.
The key to modernising any weapon is covering them in glue and tossing them in a barrel of M1913 rails until they look "Modern" enough.
Many thanks to [R-DEV]Adriaan for the sig!
