| Next |

Page 1

Weapons & Countermeasures Modeling in Falcon 4.0:
Interview with Realism Patch Group's "Hoola"
By Paul Stewart

Product Name: Falcon 4.0 Realism Patch
Version: RP4.0
Category: Jet Simulation
Developer: RP Group
Release Date: Released
Files: | 1.08us Patch | Falcon 4.0 Realism Patch 4 Installer |
Article Type: Interview
Article Date: November 30, 2000

In January of 2000, I began working with the Realism Patch Group, where I became acquainted with a collaborator on the Project known as "Hoola." Hoola was Coordinator for the Missile Group, a committee charged with researching relevant data for air-to-air and air-to-ground missile modeling. I went into this collaboration as a tester, fully expecting that Hoola would be more or less the same caliber of the rest of us armchair pilots in the Falcon4 community. I was disabused of that notion within one hour of working with him.

The level of actual working knowledge this man had not only about missile systems, but also about physics, kinematics, propulsion systems, guidance mechanization, radar, electronic warfare, Western and Easter-bloc weapons, was nothing short of stunning. Rather than a casual F4 Player, Hoola is a bonafide aeronautical engineer with experience with real modern air and ground-launched weapons systems, as well as airplanes.

Now, almost a year after first working with this incredibly valuable member of the RP Group, I decided to sit down with Hoola to discuss with him the issues that underlay the modeling of the weapons, radar, ECM and infrared systems in F4, how he re-mechanized them, and why. I also saw this as a broader opportunity for the F4 Community to get better sense of one of the key architects of the Realism Patch series. Most importantly, the goal is to allow the F4 Community to get the fullest sense of the caliber and expertise of the individuals behind the Realism Patch Series.

[Paul] Start by telling us a little bit about your background (only what you want to divulge).

[Hoola] I work in the aerospace sector as an aeronautical engineer, primarily in certification of air vehicle airworthiness, and supporting flight operations. This gives also routine exposure to, and experience with, the weapon systems as well as fire control systems. My career involves detailed understanding of the physics and mechanics behind the various aspects of aircraft design, such as structural dynamics, handling qualities, control systems, weapon employment, and fire control system integration.

[Paul] Where did you learn all the incredibly detailed information about missile kinematics and seeker properties?

[Hoola] For missile kinematics, it behaves pretty much like aircraft, and I have also had detailed academic courses on missile aerodynamics before quite some time ago. With regards to seeker properties, I learnt it from quite a lot of public material that I have access to, reinforced by some of the background information that I have obtained throughout my career.

[Paul] When we first started working together, you will recall I had several rather naive beliefs about how missiles work, and was rather blown away by all the stuff I did not know. Could you describe what some of the common misconceptions people have about A2A missiles and SAMS, and what allows for an understanding of these systems?

[Hoola] A lot of people do not realise that missile range is about energy state, and they also do not realise about how manufacturers in the military sector publish they specifications in open literature.

Missile kinematics is related to engagement geometry as well as possible target maneuver, since the missile coast unpowered most of the time. This is also related to atmospheric conditions. At lower altitudes, the air density is higher, hence the missile bleeds more energy due to the higher drag. At higher altitudes, the air density is lower, and hence missile range increases. Also, launch aircraft airspeed plays a part. If launched at lower speed, then less energy is imparted onto the missile, and vice versa. What this means is that all manufacturers will quote a specific range but leave out the details.

[Paul] So you are saying manufacturers can exaggerate these claims, by choosing the best case scenario?

[Hoola] Yes, for example, AIM-120 is often quoted with something like 40-50 km range. This can well be a case of high altitude engagement against a non-maneuvering target, closing at speed higher than Mach 1. Conversely, for a lower altitude engagement, the range will be a lot less. No manufacturer will knowingly put in a lower range number, and they will always take the number that is most "advantageous" to them.

F16 and the AIM120 (Source: USAF)

| Next |