I'm not very experienced at playing CMANO, but I am an aviator. I find it very hard to believe that an H-6M bomber can absorb an AMRAAM hit and continue with its mission. I understand the DP system, to a degree. However, aircraft have many vulnerabilities short of structural failure. Holes in the wings induce fuel leaks: hard to continue (assuming no fire!) without fuel. Hydraulic lines, aerodynamics (especially from peeled back sections), flight controls, generators, crew, oxygen, etc. Most frequently, a hit to an engine causes shredded turbine blades. They'll tend to rip apart the engine, any nearby engine, and any part of the aircraft in the plane of rotation. Best radar return is either the radome or engine face (from a face-on aspect). Either location is deadly if hit by an AMRAAM, even if the rest of the aircraft is "okay".
I'm sure you've studied this before you arrived at the conclusion that a modernized Tu-16 could take 3 AMRAAMs and continue the mission. I'd love to see some real-world test data supporting this level of robustness.
(But, hey, I -do- love the game. ;) )
Thanks. Notice that I did add the caveat "not taking into account checks for critical hits on cockpit/fuselage/engines". So the "4 hits to take down" assumes no hits on engines, fuselage or cockpit at all, which is unlikely.
One of the modifiers we have for the probabilities to hit these subsystems is the aircraft size. Basically the larger the airframe gets, the less likely it is that the weapon will impact at/near these systems.
For example, the nominal probability of hitting the cockpit is as follows:
Small AC: 40%
Medium AC: 30%
Large AC: 20%
Very Large AC: 10%
This is further modified by the aspect of the incoming impact. If the weapon is hitting on the frontal quarter, the probability is multiplied by 1.5.
So in the example of the H-6M (very large AC), the probability of a missile impacting close enough to the cockpit to evaluate for penetration is 10% * 1.5 = 15%. The reasoning being that there is simply so much other volume/area of the aircraft that weapon may happen to near-detonate instead.
Based on your description, I understand you feel that such a figure is an underestimation.
Perhaps a further modifier would need to be applied, based on the guidance type of the weapon? (E.g. radar-guided missiles coming from the front have an increased probability of going for the cockpit and engine intakes, whereas IR missiles and radar-aimed gun rounds have a more equal distribution because they have no hot point). This could potentially over-complicate things.
Or is your objection more towards secondary damage? (We already have a high likelihood of fire eruption, and indeed in all the test runs I did both Badgers suffered fire damage throughout their retreat).
< Message edited by Sunburn -- 7/29/2017 5:04:14 PM >