Zephyr Net :: View topic - Russian Missiles

Thanks all for the input. I just posted the latest playset with the missile changes. I was keeping an 80% effective as US equivalent in mind. I posted the excel sheet I used in my ftp weapons my icons folder listed as ac guns.xls for those interested. I may make changes to them in the future as I get a chance to use/fight them.

For years, I have watched programs and read text saying how awesome the AIM-54 was, yet recently I have heard in podcast pilots talking about its failure rate. So, who knows?

The reality vs gameplay dilemma is definitely a balancing act. If the game is unrealistic, it loses credibility and no one wants to play. If it is realistic, but that realism causes a huge advantage/ disadvantage gap, then the game becomes boring/ aggravating and no one wants to play. Ultimately, my goal for the playset is the "believable fun factor".

usnraptor wrote:

Just watched an interview from just 2 weeks ago with the CEO of DCS and this very topic came up because the effectiveness of the AMRAAM has been so enhanced in the last update as to make it nearly impossible to survive against and he stated how bad the Russian missiles really are and he also stated he will not be "balancing" the Sim by making the Russian weapons more effective because he believes in realism and that is what happens when one side had a HUGE technological advantage so I am thinking you are giving the Russians way to much credit giving them 80% effectiveness compared to the AMRAAM as the new AIM120 in DCS is on a magnitude of 10 above what it was previously and the Russian missiles will have no compensating BVR improvement because it wouldn't be real...

I just read today in Air & Space magazine the Ukrainians are still using the SARH missiles (R-27 ?) in their Su-27s because the fighters have not been upgraded.

usnraptor wrote:

For years, I have watched programs and read text saying how awesome the AIM-54 was, yet recently I have heard in podcast pilots talking about its failure rate. So, who knows?

Well, that's the thing with real-world data. For example, the programs and text might have been saying (accurately, to the best of my knowledge) that the AIM-54 was theoretically very effective against its original target - large, non-maneuvering bombers at very long range. Its ridiculously large motor and warhead help illustrate this point.

However, in real-world settings, the AIM-54 wasn't always used in this manner. If it were fired against a small, maneuvering target utilizing electronic jamming (which the Phoenix was weaker against, being an older missile), I wouldn't really "blame" the AIM-54 for not being all that effective. It doesn't mean that it was not "awesome", just that it didn't work as well as hoped outside its intended role. You certainly wouldn't judge an A-10 for losing a dogfight against an adversary. It *can* fight on less than ideal terms, but it losing against an actual fighter doesn't mean it's a bad aircraft per se.

It's also possible that when tested under ideal circumstances, the AIM-54 was quite effective. But again, things aren't often used in ideal circumstances (due to funding, laziness, etc.), and the fact that the motors failed sometimes when used (very rarely) isn't a good thing, but it still isn't necessarily a knock against the missile.

It does highlight the importance of practicality, though. When we were kids, it was all about what was the coolest, or had the best specs on paper. I'm sure many of us still have a soft spot for the F-14, and bemoan its "early" retirement. But the fact that it was a *huge* hangar queen, and the introduction of the F/A-18 into the fleet arguably made the USN's air arm much more effective (due to aircraft actually being able to fly more often) isn't a "sexy" thing, but logistics rarely is.

usnraptor wrote:

I think you're on the right track, more or less. After all, this is still a game. If we were to play an actually realistic Desert Storm campaign, the coalition had so many advantages (particularly in situational awareness) that it wouldn't even be fun to play on either side, it would just be a one-sided beatdown, and that can get old and less than entertaining pretty quickly (it's very nice in an actual war, of course).

Author:	usnraptor [ Thu Jul 16, 2020 20:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Russian Missiles
Is there a lib available to download where someone has done the research and built Russian Missiles that are a better representation of real ones as opposed to the default missiles? I'm asking mainly because I am converting the 1976 Baltic Campaign to have the player fly for the Soviet Union (15 missions complete).

Author:	usnraptor [ Thu Aug 13, 2020 23:14 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Russian Missiles
Okay, new question. In your opinion, what would you guess would be the accuracy of Russian air to air missiles in relation to their US missile counterparts (i.e AA-12 is 80% as accurate as AIM-120)? In other news, I have 40 missions complete for the USSR Baltic 1976 campaign. I need to instill some continuity with the air to air missiles, and modify the MiG-25 prior to completing the campaign package.

Author:	Centurian57_369th [ Sat Aug 15, 2020 18:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Russian Missiles
Very hard to tell really. The AIM-120 has been used multiple times in combat (to stick with this one example) but the R-77 really hasn't. In fact a lot circulating the internet about Indian frustration with the R-77 being inferior to the AIM-120 in the wake of their little spat earlier this year. I perused this once, perhaps the only time I've ever gone to Reddit. I have no idea as to the veracity of it. https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/com ... nato_aams/

Author:	CAG Hotshot [ Wed Aug 26, 2020 23:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Russian Missiles
Russian missile shave terrible PK... The AA-10 series has never made a successful kill unless you count accidently shooting down your own aircraft with it. The various other Russian missiles such as the R-77 and the AA-11 are much more effective. The Russians have shown a marked improvement in their IR seekers that at least equal the West in the AIM-122 and AIM-9X though not as maneuverable when fired off boresight. I would put the R-77 at 50% as effective as as the AIM-120 but its just a pure guess but from all its bad press it might even be more realistic to make it 24% as effective... similar to the AIM-7 Sparrow. The missiles carried by the MiG-35 are likely more effective as a lot of money went into making that jet an effective weapons systems against intruding B-1s...

Author:	usnraptor [ Thu Aug 27, 2020 00:05 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Russian Missiles
Thanks all for the input. I just posted the latest playset with the missile changes. I was keeping an 80% effective as US equivalent in mind. I posted the excel sheet I used in my http weapons my icons folder listed as ac guns.xls for those interested. I may make changes to them in the future as I get a chance to use/fight them. http://myplace.frontier.com/~usnraptor/Fighters%20Anthology/Weapons/My%20Icons/AC%20Guns.xls

Zephyr Net http://jkpeterson.net/forum/

Russian Missiles http://jkpeterson.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2423	Page 1 of 1

Author:	CAG Hotshot [ Sat Aug 29, 2020 04:25 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Russian Missiles
usnraptor wrote: Thanks all for the input. I just posted the latest playset with the missile changes. I was keeping an 80% effective as US equivalent in mind. I posted the excel sheet I used in my ftp weapons my icons folder listed as ac guns.xls for those interested. I may make changes to them in the future as I get a chance to use/fight them. Just watched an interview from just 2 weeks ago with the CEO of DCS and this very topic came up because the effectiveness of the AMRAAM has been so enhanced in the last update as to make it nearly impossible to survive against and he stated how bad the Russian missiles really are and he also stated he will not be "balancing" the Sim by making the Russian weapons more effective because he believes in realism and that is what happens when one side had a HUGE technological advantage so I am thinking you are giving the Russians way to much credit giving them 80% effectiveness compared to the AMRAAM as the new AIM120 in DCS is on a magnitude of 10 above what it was previously and the Russian missiles will have no compensating BVR improvement because it wouldn't be real...

Author:	usnraptor [ Sat Aug 29, 2020 12:36 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Russian Missiles
Thanks for the response. The problem with the missiles is without official data, it is a guessing game based on various sources all with different opinions. For years, I have watched programs and read text saying how awesome the AIM-54 was, yet recently I have heard in podcast pilots talking about its failure rate. So, who knows? When ever I "build" a plane for FA, I try to get the manual first. Without the manual, I have to scrounge various websites for information, all with varying degrees of info, and try to guess what the reality might be. In regards to the AIM-120, the one posted in the playset will likely be relabeled the A model if I build a C model. It was with the AIM-120 that I noticed it has a much higher Pk when fired at me than when fired at the AI pilots. Perhaps a built in advantage for the computer pilots, Mr. Iverson? The reality vs gameplay dilemma is definitely a balancing act. If the game is unrealistic, it loses credibility and no one wants to play. If it is realistic, but that realism causes a huge advantage/ disadvantage gap, then the game becomes boring/ aggravating and no one wants to play. Ultimately, my goal for the playset is the "believable fun factor". Anyways, that's my two cents.

Author:	Speedy [ Sun Aug 30, 2020 02:41 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Russian Missiles
usnraptor wrote: For years, I have watched programs and read text saying how awesome the AIM-54 was, yet recently I have heard in podcast pilots talking about its failure rate. So, who knows? Well, that's the thing with real-world data. For example, the programs and text might have been saying (accurately, to the best of my knowledge) that the AIM-54 was theoretically very effective against its original target - large, non-maneuvering bombers at very long range. Its ridiculously large motor and warhead help illustrate this point. However, in real-world settings, the AIM-54 wasn't always used in this manner. If it were fired against a small, maneuvering target utilizing electronic jamming (which the Phoenix was weaker against, being an older missile), I wouldn't really "blame" the AIM-54 for not being all that effective. It doesn't mean that it was not "awesome", just that it didn't work as well as hoped outside its intended role. You certainly wouldn't judge an A-10 for losing a dogfight against an adversary. It can fight on less than ideal terms, but it losing against an actual fighter doesn't mean it's a bad aircraft per se. It's also possible that when tested under ideal circumstances, the AIM-54 was quite effective. But again, things aren't often used in ideal circumstances (due to funding, laziness, etc.), and the fact that the motors failed sometimes when used (very rarely) isn't a good thing, but it still isn't necessarily a knock against the missile. It does highlight the importance of practicality, though. When we were kids, it was all about what was the coolest, or had the best specs on paper. I'm sure many of us still have a soft spot for the F-14, and bemoan its "early" retirement. But the fact that it was a huge hangar queen, and the introduction of the F/A-18 into the fleet arguably made the USN's air arm much more effective (due to aircraft actually being able to fly more often) isn't a "sexy" thing, but logistics rarely is. usnraptor wrote: The reality vs gameplay dilemma is definitely a balancing act. If the game is unrealistic, it loses credibility and no one wants to play. If it is realistic, but that realism causes a huge advantage/ disadvantage gap, then the game becomes boring/ aggravating and no one wants to play. Ultimately, my goal for the playset is the "believable fun factor". I think you're on the right track, more or less. After all, this is still a game. If we were to play an actually realistic Desert Storm campaign, the coalition had so many advantages (particularly in situational awareness) that it wouldn't even be fun to play on either side, it would just be a one-sided beatdown, and that can get old and less than entertaining pretty quickly (it's very nice in an actual war, of course).

Author:	mlad [ Sun Sep 06, 2020 20:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Russian Missiles
On air-to-air missiles Revolutionising Aerial Warfare: What to Expect From America’s New AIM-260 Missile Leading American defence manufacturer Lockheed Martin has been developing an advanced new long range air to air missile, the AIM-260, since 2017. The missile is intended to replace replace the AIM-120 AMRAAM which entered service in late 1990 and has become the staple of U.S. and allied anti aircraft capabilities ever since. The AIM-120 was developed in the waning years of the Cold War to replace the ageing AIM-7 Sparrow, in response to the Soviet deployment of the R-27 from 1983 considerably outmatched the Sparrow. While the AIM-120 was the most capable missile in the world throughout the 1990s by a considerable margin, with the Soviet collapse seriously delaying the rival R-77 program, the AMRAAM’s advantage has since be significantly eroded by the development of new missile systems by U.S. adversaries. With the ageing AIM-120A and AIM-120B phased out of frontline service, the vast majority of U.S. fighter units and those of major allies today rely on the AIM-120C for air to air engagements - a platform with an extended 105km range and superior electronic warfare countermeasures and guidance systems. Far from guaranteeing an advantage however, the platform is matched in its capabilities and in several cases considerably outmatched by rival Russian and Chinese systems. Newer variants fo the R-77 have a 110km range, while the R-27 design has been extensively modernised to provide a 130km range using the ER, EP and EA variants. China too deploys the PL-12 and PL-15, with comparable capabilities to the AIM-120 and respective ranges of 100km and 150-200km respectively. The PL-15 in particular today outperforms its American counterpart by a considerable margin, and while initially prioritised for elite J-10C, J-16 and J-20 fighters it is increasingly being deployed across the fleet by older platforms such as the J-11B. The United States does currently field a superior AMRAAM variant, the AIM-120D, although at around $2 million per missile is has been manufactured in relatively small numbers and is not deployed in significant numbers by units other than F-22 Raptor squadrons. Other than the growing capabilities of missiles deployed by American adversaries, a major reason why the United States is seeking to replace the AMRAAM is the increasingly sophisticated countermeasure deployed by enemy aircraft. This was perhaps best demonstrated in February 2019, when an Indian Air Force Su-30MKI reportedly used a combination of its advanced electronic warfare systems, high manoeuvrability and two dimensional thrust vectoring systems to comfortably evade five AIM-120C missiles. The Su-30 was developed in the 1990s, and far more advanced platforms such as the Su-35, J-10C and Su-57 have all been developed with superior electronic warfare systems and new three dimensional thrust vectoring technologies. The high manoeuvrability afforded by these technologies not only provides an overwhelming advantage in short range air to air engagements, which becomes an increasingly likely occurrence should long range missiles fail, but it also allows aircraft to more easily evade missile attacks. Thus there is a need for a more advanced missile which not only has a longer range, but is also more difficult to evade. A number of technologies and concepts which could be applied to the new AIM-260 missile have been speculated. Ramjet technologies similar to those used by the European Meteor and Chinese PL-21 could seriously extend its range to around 400km or more, while hypersonic speeds could reduce the response time for enemy fighters to conduct evasive manoeuvres. The AIM-120 is currently restricted to speeds of Mach 4, outmatched by platforms such as the Taiwanese Sky Sword II (Mach 5) and Russian R-37 (Mach 6), and speed is likely to be a field in which the new American missile improves on its predecessor. Another major field of improvement expected for the AIM-260 is in guidance, and it has been suggested that the platform could deploy both radar and infrared seekers to provide maximum immunity to jamming. It is also highly possible that the missile will integrate an active phased array antenna (APAA), pioneered by the Russian K-77 missile, which will provide a far wider radar angular coverage azimuth and thereby prevent manoeuvrable fighters such as the Su-35 from simply ducking outside the area covered by the missile’s radar when at close range and thereby completely evading it. APAA technologies could be a major game changer against new Russian combat jets which emphasise the importance of manoeuvrability, as well as new ‘supermaneouvrable’ Chinese fighters such as the J-10C and J-11D. The capabilities of the AIM-260 remain to be seen, but there appears to be considerable room for improvement on the AIM-120 design. Some improvements which are almost certain include integration of more powerful sensors, all the more necessary as adversaries increasingly deploy stealth aircraft, as well as superior electronic warfare countermeasures. Considering the already high cost of the AIM-120D, the affordability of the AIM-260 is likely to be a major issue - with very likely costing over $4 million each if integrating just a few of the new technologies suggested, possibly much more. With tens of thousands of the missiles set to be ordered, and the U.S. Air Force already facing severe budgetary constraints due to the high acquisition and operational costs of next generation hardware, Lockheed Martin may well opt for a less ambitious design for the AIM-260 in order to make it affordable. It is possible that multiple variants will be developed simultaneously - a downgraded version possibly without APAA guidance or multiple seekers for fighters such as the F-35 and F-16V, and an advanced variant for higher end heavier jets specialised in air superiority such as the upcoming sixth generation Air Dominance Fighter and Penetrating Counter Air Fighter. With Russia and China both developing highly sophisticated next generation munitions with capabilities well ahead of the AIM-120, including the K-77, R-37M, PL-12D and PL-21, the need for a new American missile is particularly urgent. From : https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/revolutionising-aerial-warfare-what-to-expect-from-america-s-new-aim-260-missile AIM-260 and Peregrine Incoming: Why the U.S. Air Force Urgently Needs New Air to Air Missiles The United States is set to receive at least two entirely new classes of long range air to air missile in the 2020s, which are intended to replace the AIM-120 AMRAAM currently in service. U.S. defence manufacturer Raytheon, best known for its THAAD, RIM-161 and AIM-120 missiles, in September announced the development of the ‘Peregrine’ - an entirely new family of air to air missiles intended to be deployed by next generation American fighters. The Peregrine’s capabilities are reportedly set to be similar to the AIM-120 currently in service, but will be far more compact. The need for such a missile has arisen due to the very limited weapons payloads of fifth generation American fighter jets, which due to their advanced radar evading capabilities are required to store all missiles internally. The F-22 and F-35 fighters currently in service can deploy just eight and four missiles respectively as a result of this. The Peregrine will allow these jets to double their internal weapons carriage - which for the F-35 in particular will be a game changer and provide a far more respectable eight missile payload. While the Peregrine program is being privately funded, the U.S. Air Force has also requested the development of the AIM-260 which will emphasise advanced capabilities over compactness. The shortcomings of the AIM-120 against modern threats has made the development of this platform an imperative. The AMRAAM first entered service in 1991 and replaced the AIM-7 Sparrow which had been the foremost long rang anti aircraft missile for American aircraft since the mid 1960s. While the AIM-120 design has been progressively upgraded, improving its range, sensors, accuracy and electronic warfare countermeasures, the missile is considered increasingly outmatched by the latest armaments deployed by rival powers. The Chinese PL-15, with an estimated range of up to 200km, and the Russian R-37M and K-77 with 400km and 200km ranges respectively, are the most prominent examples, with more capable systems currently under development such as the Chinese PL-21. With the AIM-120C restricted to a range of approximately 105km, and the more costly AIM-120D restricted to a 180km range and yet to be widely deployed, the need for new missiles is particularly urgent. The U.S. Air Force’s need for more capable air to air missiles is compounded by additional factors, including the development of hypersonic air to air missiles such as the Russian R-37M which significantly shortens the response time of targeted aircraft, the development of APAA guidance systems on missiles such as the K-77 which make them nearly impossible to evade, and the fielding of more survivable combat aircraft by potential adversaries. Survivability of new Chinese and Russian jets against beyond visual range missiles has been increased by a number of means, one of the most prominent being the new thrust vectoring engines which have become a signature of modern Russian military aviation and allow jets such as the Su-35 and Su-57 to evade attacks using their significantly enhanced manoeuvrability. Advanced stealth capabilities on aircraft such as the Chinese J-20 have made aircraft extremely difficult to lock onto at range, and these enhancements are complemented by increasingly sophisticated electronic warfare systems. The ability of the AIM-120 to engage enemy targets at range with a high probability of kill has thus increasingly been eroded. The AIM-260 is likely to be considerably faster and benefit from a longer range, more powerful sensors and other attributes which will provide a much needed improvement to its kill probability against higher-end enemy aircraft. APAA guidance systems similar to those on the K-77 are a significant possibility. The Peregrine deployed in larger numbers will meanwhile be better suited to countering older aircraft fielded in large numbers by second rate adversaries such as Iran or Syria - which rely on jets such as the MiG-23 Flogger and F-4 Phantom to form the backbone of their fleets. Against such adversaries greater quantities of firepower will likely be prized over sophistication - making the Peregrine ideal. From : https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/aim-260-and-peregrine-incoming-why-the-u-s-air-force-urgently-needs-new-air-to-air-missiles

Author:	usnraptor [ Sun Sep 06, 2020 23:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Russian Missiles
Thanks for the info.

Author:	Kai [ Wed Sep 09, 2020 11:47 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Russian Missiles
CAG Hotshot wrote: usnraptor wrote: Thanks all for the input. I just posted the latest playset with the missile changes. I was keeping an 80% effective as US equivalent in mind. I posted the excel sheet I used in my ftp weapons my icons folder listed as ac guns.xls for those interested. I may make changes to them in the future as I get a chance to use/fight them. Just watched an interview from just 2 weeks ago with the CEO of DCS and this very topic came up because the effectiveness of the AMRAAM has been so enhanced in the last update as to make it nearly impossible to survive against and he stated how bad the Russian missiles really are and he also stated he will not be "balancing" the Sim by making the Russian weapons more effective because he believes in realism and that is what happens when one side had a HUGE technological advantage so I am thinking you are giving the Russians way to much credit giving them 80% effectiveness compared to the AMRAAM as the new AIM120 in DCS is on a magnitude of 10 above what it was previously and the Russian missiles will have no compensating BVR improvement because it wouldn't be real... Yeah. The AMRAAM, especially the AIM-120C is quite the poison arrow now in DCS. The R-27R/ER and R-77 have always had questionable capability while the IR guided R-27ET and R-73 have been more effective. Still not as much real world data available on 4th generation Russian missiles albit the R-27 has a pretty poor record from my understanding. The R-77 is another question mark but I'd imagine the base R-77 designed during the Cold War is less effective than the early AIM-120A as far as guidance and certainly less effective than the B/C AMRAAMs.

Author:	Centurian57_369th [ Sat Sep 26, 2020 23:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Russian Missiles
The AIM-54A certainly performed admirably in the Iran-Iraq War. Admirably enough that the Iraqis turned tail and ran whenever their RWRs showed a diamond-enclosed 14. The Phoenix proved extremely good in that war against small fighter aircraft and the large warhead - on more than one occasion - downed multiple aircraft with one missile. Another little tidbit - at least on the MiG-29 (far removed from the MiG-35). Post-CW, the East Germans let us play around with the -29s. What we found is what they found. The MiG-29 + R-73 combination was truly deadly in close range and the R-73 was superior to the AIM-9M. Yet the MiG-29's BVR was for garbage. You know you still see a lot of Su-27s flying around with R-27s and I wonder if that's because they're not upgraded to carry the R-77 (because by right some Su-27s haven't been upgraded since they were introduced) or because even the Russians don't have faith in the R-77.

Author:	usnraptor [ Sun Sep 27, 2020 01:46 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Russian Missiles
I just read today in Air & Space magazine the Ukrainians are still using the SARH missiles (R-27 ?) in their Su-27s because the fighters have not been upgraded.

Author:	Centurian57_369th [ Wed Sep 30, 2020 10:55 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Russian Missiles
usnraptor wrote: I just read today in Air & Space magazine the Ukrainians are still using the SARH missiles (R-27 ?) in their Su-27s because the fighters have not been upgraded. Yep not surprising. Ukraine has largely neglected its military since the end of the Cold War - as evidenced by what we saw in Donetsk. What wasn't neglected was siphoned off to arms dealers via corruption. Russia's trying to upgrade their Su-27s to the new Su-27SM2 standard but they have a lot of work ahead of them. Your average F-15C might be older than the average Su-27 in terms of construction but they're significantly more advanced.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	CAG Hotshot [ Fri Oct 09, 2020 03:42 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Russian Missiles
Speedy wrote: usnraptor wrote: For years, I have watched programs and read text saying how awesome the AIM-54 was, yet recently I have heard in podcast pilots talking about its failure rate. So, who knows? Well, that's the thing with real-world data. For example, the programs and text might have been saying (accurately, to the best of my knowledge) that the AIM-54 was theoretically very effective against its original target - large, non-maneuvering bombers at very long range. Its ridiculously large motor and warhead help illustrate this point. However, in real-world settings, the AIM-54 wasn't always used in this manner. If it were fired against a small, maneuvering target utilizing electronic jamming (which the Phoenix was weaker against, being an older missile), I wouldn't really "blame" the AIM-54 for not being all that effective. It doesn't mean that it was not "awesome", just that it didn't work as well as hoped outside its intended role. You certainly wouldn't judge an A-10 for losing a dogfight against an adversary. It can fight on less than ideal terms, but it losing against an actual fighter doesn't mean it's a bad aircraft per se. It's also possible that when tested under ideal circumstances, the AIM-54 was quite effective. But again, things aren't often used in ideal circumstances (due to funding, laziness, etc.), and the fact that the motors failed sometimes when used (very rarely) isn't a good thing, but it still isn't necessarily a knock against the missile. It does highlight the importance of practicality, though. When we were kids, it was all about what was the coolest, or had the best specs on paper. I'm sure many of us still have a soft spot for the F-14, and bemoan its "early" retirement. But the fact that it was a huge hangar queen, and the introduction of the F/A-18 into the fleet arguably made the USN's air arm much more effective (due to aircraft actually being able to fly more often) isn't a "sexy" thing, but logistics rarely is. usnraptor wrote: The reality vs gameplay dilemma is definitely a balancing act. If the game is unrealistic, it loses credibility and no one wants to play. If it is realistic, but that realism causes a huge advantage/ disadvantage gap, then the game becomes boring/ aggravating and no one wants to play. Ultimately, my goal for the playset is the "believable fun factor". I think you're on the right track, more or less. After all, this is still a game. If we were to play an actually realistic Desert Storm campaign, the coalition had so many advantages (particularly in situational awareness) that it wouldn't even be fun to play on either side, it would just be a one-sided beatdown, and that can get old and less than entertaining pretty quickly (it's very nice in an actual war, of course). AIM-54A has issued with ECCM, but not the AIM-54C. It has ECCM and rejection to overcoming jamming and beaming targets.