It still requires guidance from start to finish, and all missiles in-game are exploding after break-lock which should not be the case… unfortunately for AIM-7’s it is the case. Just another example of how all other missiles are kneecapped because the American ones are limited.
Because earlier Aim7s the moment you drop lock are done with.
The later variants such as the M can still maintain some degreee of signal loss and keep pushing to last location. But to connect it requires illumination once again.
How long can it go? I do not know. But it is not the same missile as the Aim7F. This is just pure laziness and lack of interest of western missile by GJ.
How many times does it need to be explained before you understand that modeling the differences would only nerf the AIM-7F and not buff the AIM-7M? They made the AIM-7F better than it needed to be.
I need you to confirm that all sparrows from the earliest to M will explode the moment you drop a lock. That there is no computer capable of any form of autopilot the moment illumination is cut in any model, especially the M. The United states made no effort to address these video game drawbacks all the way up to the P.
Additionally, because of the gibberish here:
You are confirming the Aim7M cannot simply have a better lookdown capability and must be a copy paste of F.
Yes or No.
This is an intentional statement to obscure the truth and downplay the disadvantage that western mains face.
The R27ER magically has the best inertial guidance system in the world that can bring a missile within meters without a lock. Not even the mighty power of the Awg9 or Aim54C with its inertial guidance and its own radar is capable of such precision lmfao.
I need you to confirm that the ER/ET (a 771lb missile) can go almost hypersonic in the dense low altitude and pull an immediate 90 degrees to strike a target at close range after dropping and reestablishing a lock.
The R73 is 5x times lighter and much slower with thrust vectoring and cannot pull these insane physics defying performances. I forgot we are still learning about kinetic/mechanical energy, right? I’ll wait.
That’s not how this works, you want to complain and say all these things are wrong with the missile but bring nothing to support your claims. You want it changed? PROVE IT. Make a report. https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder
No, in-game the AIM-7F has better look-down capability than it should because they are not modeling these distinctions. There is also the ongoing discussion of multi-pathing. Perhaps they have it set far too high currently, that’s yet to be determined by the devs and information is actively being forwarded to try and change it. You’re not forwarding anything.
No, it’s not. It’s as simple as the AIM-7 blows up after break lock, so they’ve modeled that (erroneously) for all other countries as well despite proof to the contrary in regards to missiles as early as the R.530 for France.
Uhh… no… and the R-27ER is performing as it should according to all known documentation currently…
What does weight have anything to do with speed? The missile performs according to all known documentation and everything checks out. It’s simply a powerhouse, as you said… 771 pounds and it’s mostly propellant. It’s not as fast as the AIM-54 but we didn’t know how the AIM-54 actually performed until a few weeks ago.
To be completely honest, this is also comparing the AIM-54 (design from 1963) to the R-27ER (design from 1991)…
I don’t know why you said “we”, you’re the only one having a hard time understanding the nomenclature of “midcourse” in respect to the Sparrow (SARH without inertial unit or datalink). If you think the R-27R/ER loses too little energy in turns you’re free to report it with a valid source… the manuals and institutes that did research on the R-27ER provided plenty of very good and reputable data for them to model the missile - and it’s modeled as such.
I am sorry did this man just ask what does weight have to do with speed?? What does weight have to do with speed and maneuvering?
…
Um yes. The US has always been much further ahead in combat aviation. That is just a fact. Secondly, I stated the Aim54C. Fascinating attempt to obscure the path of truth once again.
The United States already knew EVERYTHING they needed to know about the Mig23 radar, Mig29, Su27 and Mig31. R23, R24, R27. They are all obsolete technologies or copies of the West. Thanks to the brilliant Soviet Radar Engineer Adolf Tolkachev.
I am sorry I am a Soviet fanboy and must admit we got nothing on the US.
You really need to learn about a thing called physics. This is unacceptable.
I am saying this with the most genuine concern for someone who is a self-reported aviation expert and enthusiast. I cannot sit here and give people a physics 101.
please stop. I give in! My bad. You’re right! Weight has nothing to do with velocity and rapid change of direction of flying objects in the earth’s atmosphere.
You go on to say these things about me, I have no degree or education in this. Neither do you. I’ve never claimed to be an expert, though I am an enthusiast.
Correct.
Anyone with a basic understanding of physics will know exactly what I’m talking about or referring to. Weight of the missile has little to do with speed, drag and thrust do. Let’s not pretend each other is stupid… as you are to me now, it’s unbecoming and dishonest to try and discredit someone’s argument in such a way. You know very well velocity does not require mass in the equation.
I was clearly not replying about the maximum overload, that is a rather simple and easy thing to discuss… the graphs and overload is explicitly stated in the primary sources used to bug report the R-27 family of missiles. It is 35G. Likewise, the AIM-7F has 25G and the AIM-54 has 17G (currently). To pretend it’s fictitious would imply you have some information I don’t?
That is becoming more apparent the longer we speak about anything. It’s actually starting to become an inconvenience explaining to you how the world around us works.
I actually do, I have an AA in physics out of RCC in Riverside, CA graduated in 2007.
However, AA or not. Just a basic high school diploma should be efficient in understanding weight has an effect on moving objects on the earth’s surface, in the earth’s atmosphere and under the surface in the sea…
Do me a favor and explain where mass is relevant to the equations for determining velocity.
So if all reputable primary sources for a missile state 35G you find their determination wrong? Perhaps if it’s so basic, show me why a 771 pound missile would not be capable of maneuvering at such overloads?
Oh I am sorry, you are attempting to diffuse my education because you stated you have none. Ah I see. But you do have a high school diploma. its sufficient, let it shine baby. You do not need a favor. You brought education into this.
I did not say I did not have an education beyond highschool, rather it is not in aerospace, engineering, or physics. The thing about physics, is that the math is something anyone can do. If you prove something wrong using the proper math, it’s wrong. Prove me wrong.
The R-27ER is capable of mach 5+ at altitude, you haven’t even demonstrated it doing so at lower altitudes to support your initial argument. If it’s such a concern, and if you think it’s overperforming or want to assert this… PROVE IT.
And how is that related to it’s top speed in thick air? Stop sidestepping the problem.
The AIM-54 has a T/W of approximately ~3.2, and it’s caliber is 380mm…
At burnout that thrust to weight increased to approximately ~5.3…
The R-27ER in boost phase has a T/W ratio of approximately ~16.1… and 260mm caliber missile…
Even the sustainer phase at start is >9:1 thrust to weight (3x the AIM-54’s!)…
Knowing the caliber is one part of the drag equation, but it’s clear already… one of these missiles has a much higher thrust over drag ratio and the AIM-54 already goes mach 6… mach 3 at low alts.
My 2-cents on the F16a is that it has bad missiles, and no BVR getting sucked into 12.3 every match. Literal best flight performance in the game but that only gets you so far when everyone else is pretty close and with much more effective armament. Same story goes for most 11.7s but even worse flight performance. Only really the Yak-41 is spared because it has 27ERs and can remain effective much further from the battle. (I love my YAK its so good)
You keep rifling off random questions. You just said mass has nothing to do with velocity. Which your wrong. Now you are immediately asking another question completely unacknowledging your err.
I am going to have to start charging you a question my boy. I gtg Its 1:40pm I got stuff to do. Brb