Engagement with Amraam - is it a bug ?

[JoeBob]

I've tried many options of engagement when firing Amraam against a target, it is never launched at max range.
When manual targeting with SHIFT-F1, it says "Automatic fire is not possible. Firing unit must obtain a high-quality track..."
When the "engage ambigous target" is set to "Ignore", same message.
The Amraam is then fired at about 40 nm which is good range but not max range at 60 nm.

Is there someting i've misunderstood or is it a bug ?

[desrtfox071]

No, it's not a bug. you'll find this is true for most of the missiles, etc. The reason for this is generally that the missile has a max range, but that range is only useful in very specific circumstances. So, the weapon isn't fired unless there's a chance to hit, so at 60nm, max range, the target could just turn around and fly for 10 seconds to guarantee no hit. Command prevents you from wasting munitions this way. Max range in Command is more like in real life, not a typical video game way of doing it. There probably should be some override so you can fire at "max range" and waste your munitions if you'd like though.

Now, maybe something else is going on here, but without a screenshot this is my best guess.

[Mallear]

max range highly depends on the shooter's and the target's altitude. Also just from "Firing unit must obtain a high-quality tack" message it seems your shooter hasn't a solid radar lock on the target. Is it's radar on? Overriden emcom state already?

[JoeBob]

ok I understand but I believe CMANO enabled the fire at max range even I agree it could be a waste as the target has enough time to evade. But may be I make a mistake. I'm going to try in CMANO I'm reinstalling it just to know.

[desrtfox071]

JoeBob a écrit :

ok I understand but I believe CMANO enabled the fire at max range even I agree it could be a waste as the target has enough time to evade. But may be I make a mistake. I'm going to try in CMANO I'm reinstalling it just to know.

Also, check out Dr. Hal Emmerich's suggestion as well. That's probably more on point than mine. Just because you can see the target doesn't mean you have a firing solution on it.

[JoeBob]

Dr. Hal Emmerich a écrit :

max range highly depends on the shooter's and the target's altitude. Also just from "Firing unit must obtain a high-quality tack" message it seems your shooter hasn't a solid radar lock on the target. Is it's radar on? Overriden emcom state already?

Yes radar On (I've tried with on and off) and shooter and target are at same altitude (F16 against MIG23)

[JoeBob]

It's the same behavior in CMANO (waoooh I feel to turn back in prehistory :-))
ok I resign
But the AN/APG 68 is 60 nm max range and the target is hardly identified by AWACS in speed, altitude, aircraft, hostile (in the game, I don't know it's the same in real), so the F16 should have a good lock on target at least 50 nm.

I'll buy the DCS F16 module to know :-)
I didn't remember in Falcon 4 if it was possible to fire AMRAAM at 60 nm range

We must to ask a F16 pilot

[Surveyor]

The missile launch envelope (or "dynamic launch zone") depends a lot on the attack geometry. It's not that "the missile thinks the target could turn around and run for it", but rather depending on the target's aspect, separation, yours and the target's altitudes and speeds and even meteorological conditions the maximum range itself is always different. It gets calculated by the fire control computer and then you are presented with the restrictions it came up with on your HUD. Not sure how complex the calculations are here compared to, say, DCS, but the principle should stay the same. By the way, that's what missile lofting is all about.

If Falcon 4.0 would allow to always launch one to the maximum theoretical range, then... I just hope at least Falcon BMS is better in that regard.

[desrtfox071]

Surveyor a écrit :

The missile launch envelope (or "dynamic launch zone") depends a lot on the attack geometry. It's not that "the missile thinks the target could turn around and run for it", but rather depending on the target's aspect, separation, yours and the target's altitudes and speeds and even meteorological conditions the maximum range itself is always different. It gets calculated by the fire control computer and then you are presented with the restrictions it came up with on your HUD. Not sure how complex the calculations are here compared to, say, DCS, but the principle should stay the same. By the way, that's what missile lofting is all about.

If Falcon 4.0 would allow to always launch one to the maximum theoretical range, then... I just hope at least Falcon BMS is better in that regard.

I was trying to be concise and simple :)

[Surveyor]

desrtfox071 a écrit :

I was trying to be concise and simple :)

Which is not always a great idea :)

[JoeBob]

Surveyor a écrit :

The missile launch envelope (or "dynamic launch zone") depends a lot on the attack geometry. It's not that "the missile thinks the target could turn around and run for it", but rather depending on the target's aspect, separation, yours and the target's altitudes and speeds and even meteorological conditions the maximum range itself is always different. It gets calculated by the fire control computer and then you are presented with the restrictions it came up with on your HUD. Not sure how complex the calculations are here compared to, say, DCS, but the principle should stay the same. By the way, that's what missile lofting is all about.

If Falcon 4.0 would allow to always launch one to the maximum theoretical range, then... I just hope at least Falcon BMS is better in that regard.

That"s the real life and filght simulators like DCS, F4 or F4 BMS try to simulate as close as possible. As you say there is a lot of parameters to take into account.
I don't think CMO is able to simulate all that parameters for each aircraft.
I'd like to know what is the algorithm to make the fire decision.
Because I've tried a lot of options in ROE and so a lot of scenario reloads and the F16 always fires at the same position exactly. Same initial conditions, same result a few seconds later, no matter the ROE options (except I say the F16 to hold fire or it's not allowed to fire) and no matter the pilot proficiency : novice or ace.
So I guess the combination : F16 + MIG23 + same altitude + speeds + ... gives always about 40 nm.
It's less the fact the AMRAAM is fired at 40 nm range which disturbing me that parameters like "ambigous contact", proficiency, etc doesn't change anything.

[Surveyor]

JoeBob a écrit :

That"s the real life and filght simulators like DCS, F4 or F4 BMS try to simulate as close as possible. As you say there is a lot of parameters to take into account.
I don't think CMO is able to simulate all that parameters for each aircraft.
I'd like to know what is the algorithm to make the fire decision.
Because I've tried a lot of options in ROE and so a lot of scenario reloads and the F16 always fires at the same position exactly. Same initial conditions, same result a few seconds later, no matter the ROE options (except I say the F16 to hold fire or it's not allowed to fire) and no matter the pilot proficiency : novice or ace.
So I guess the combination : F16 + MIG23 + same altitude + speeds + ... gives always about 40 nm.
It's less the fact the AMRAAM is fired at 40 nm range which disturbing me that parameters like "ambigous contact", proficiency, etc doesn't change anything.

Turns out we're both wrong. It IS actually possible to engage the contact from ~60 nm away in CMO as long as the F-16 has detected the contact with its own radar already (not easy against a Flogger coming at you head on) and after the pilot has processed the OODA loop (basically, the reaction time).

But it looks like you are indeed correct that this is not as much of a simulation I hoped it to be... I tried experimenting in the scenario editor attacking a Tu-22 from his six with me doing only 350 kts at the moment of launch and the Tu-22 going faster while accelerating all the way to 720 kts. And what do you think? The missile has reached the Tupolev in the end, missing it in the process (that was carrying a Kitchen, no less, doing no attempts to jettison the thing).

Engaging targets head on and while chasing them I found no difference whatsoever... If CMO doesn't at least try to approximate DLZs, I'm seriously disappointed.

[Dimitris]

Surveyor a écrit :

Engaging targets head on and while chasing them I found no difference whatsoever... If CMO doesn't at least try to approximate DLZs, I'm seriously disappointed.

It does, with great care. It has done since CMANO v1.0.

If you've found a case where the model has a flaw, please post a (pre-launch) save.

[Surveyor]

Dimitris a écrit :

Surveyor a écrit :

Engaging targets head on and while chasing them I found no difference whatsoever... If CMO doesn't at least try to approximate DLZs, I'm seriously disappointed.

It does, with great care. It has done since CMANO v1.0.

If you've found a case where the model has a flaw, please post a (pre-launch) save.

Fist of all, is it possible to save a scenario editor situation without saving the scenario first, getting into the right situation then saving? Also, I found no way to manipulate the initial parameters like altitude, speed and heading in the editor. Only for the ground units you can Set Orientation, but even then it's only indicated by a number.

Now, the situation I tested just now:
F-35A (2019) with 120Ds @2k feet going 350 kts tail chasing a B-52D (a lot of RCS) @42k feet / 510 kts. The F-35 was able to lob the Deltas at the big guy from the max distance for the weapon (75 nm). Furthermore, I could move the B-52 away after switching the sides quickly, selecting it and hitting the M key to around 105 nm from the launching platform, and the missile would STILL reach near the target, activate its radar and attempt to shoot it down (but fail). Only when I would move the B-52 to over 120 nm from the F-35, the AMRAAM would self-destruct. The missile manages to maintain its top speed all the way to the target after it has had burnt all the fuel during the first third of the distance it traveled.
Do you not find it odd? Can 120Ds really reach a high altitude target from 100+ nm?

Of course I could save the scenario, save the mission right before the max range circle touches the receding target (in that case the launching platform needs to go slightly faster than the target, and I'm not sure how to command the target's AI to go full thrust post-save) and you would see that the fighter indeed does shoot from the max range and max alt difference and the missile reaches the vicinity of the target after all the flying, but at least tell me if this missile behavior is intended. Because if it is, there is no point for me to make the save and for you to check it. If it's not intended, however, I can do the save and even a recording or maybe even recording a video of the whole process.

[jbarry39]

Just remember just because the target is in the Weapon Envelope..other factors come into play before the weapon would be launched. I remember I had a FA-18 try to engage a radar site with HARM missile...and the aircraft was petulantly not engaging anything...why was that??? The target radar sight wasn't illuminating and the HARM had nothing to lock on to. So I had it loiter around for a while...and sure enough the radar switched on then >POOF< dead radar site :)

[Dimitris]

Surveyor a écrit :

Dimitris a écrit :

It does, with great care. It has done since CMANO v1.0.

If you've found a case where the model has a flaw, please post a (pre-launch) save.

Fist of all, is it possible to save a scenario editor situation without saving the scenario first, getting into the right situation then saving? Also, I found no way to manipulate the initial parameters like altitude, speed and heading in the editor. Only for the ground units you can Set Orientation, but even then it's only indicated by a number.

Now, the situation I tested just now:
F-35A (2019) with 120Ds @2k feet going 350 kts tail chasing a B-52D (a lot of RCS) @42k feet / 510 kts. The F-35 was able to lob the Deltas at the big guy from the max distance for the weapon (75 nm). Furthermore, I could move the B-52 away after switching the sides quickly, selecting it and hitting the M key to around 105 nm from the launching platform, and the missile would STILL reach near the target, activate its radar and attempt to shoot it down (but fail). Only when I would move the B-52 to over 120 nm from the F-35, the AMRAAM would self-destruct. The missile manages to maintain its top speed all the way to the target after it has had burnt all the fuel during the first third of the distance it traveled.
Do you not find it odd? Can 120Ds really reach a high altitude target from 100+ nm?

Of course I could save the scenario, save the mission right before the max range circle touches the receding target (in that case the launching platform needs to go slightly faster than the target, and I'm not sure how to command the target's AI to go full thrust post-save) and you would see that the fighter indeed does shoot from the max range and max alt difference and the missile reaches the vicinity of the target after all the flying, but at least tell me if this missile behavior is intended. Because if it is, there is no point for me to make the save and for you to check it. If it's not intended, however, I can do the save and even a recording or maybe even recording a video of the whole process.

The missile kinematic model currently has a number of abstractions:
* MIssiles accelerate to their maximum speed (at the given altitude) and then coast at this speed until the "fuel" representing their kinetic energy is depleted. They do not shed speed gradually because of atmospheric drag.
* Missiles are not affected by gravity when changing altitude, so for example if two identical missiles are launched from the same point and one climbs to higher altitude and the other dives to lower altitude, their speeds will not be affected by the altitude change (they will be affected by the different maximum speeds attainable per altitude).
* To fix issues like "missile XYZ runs out of energy at the last point before impact", missiles are given a certain angle at which they may glide indefinitely, trading altitude for "energy" (this is valid in RL too). However this, when combined with the "maximum speed all the way" effect, can lead to situations like the extended range B-52 intercept that you described.

These abstractions aside, Command's AI/Weaponry code does feature a full DLZ evaluation loop, including a simulated flyout of the weapon at the moment of intended firing, to estimate if it will be able to catch up with the target under the firing geometry of this moment. You can see this in effect clearly if, for example, you attempt the very same engagement against the target head-on, to the side and in an astern shot, or if you engage the same target and high and then at low altitude. Because of the "no drag speed-shedding" abstraction, the speed of the firing platform is a less decisive factor than its and the target's respective altitudes (which have a very real effect because they can drastically restrict missile velocity).

We are working on a more sophisticated model which will include the effects of drag (variable per altitude) and gravity to missile kinematics, allowing us to dispense with the above abstractions. In the meantime, you can either accept them or use a dedicated flight sim like F4 or DCS to finetune your BVR tactics.

Thanks.