ER was fine on first 29s as they had only R60M but now… its not fine at all, esp with what 7M does. 120 vs ER is pretty much perfect assymetrical “balance” you can get where one side gets the BFM missile advantage too. Only issue could be amraam in combination with gripen. That could be nuts. Low missile count but essentially good in both BVR and BFM.
1 Like
Lmao we had people ask for aim-120 to counter R-73 in the old forums
1 Like
That is such a silly made up excuse.
It is 100% absolutely possible and happened in Vietnam and elsewhere.
its why the Aim7M has an autopilot computer to maintain course to last known track for the very reason that a signal may be reestablished. lol the sparrow’s receiver does not magically break when a signal is lost.
A SARH missile is reliant on a specific frequency energy from the host aircraft emitted in a continuous wave against a target which is received by the missile’s receiver or what many refer to a “seeker”.
However, advancements in radars of the 4th generation have the ability to emit a pulse frequency at repetitions at a rate high enough to guide a sparrow. It is called high PRF formally known as “interrupted continuous wave” or informally as “chopped continuous wave.”
Additionally, in game you were ALWAYS able to reestablish a lock if you did it fast enough. So, an excuse it is impossible contradicts their own game.
There is no excuse for any of the sparrows to detonate their warheads because a signal was lost NOR is there any excuse why the Aim7M cannot maintain same course when a signal has ceased. The only reason is purely out of an intentional NERF to western radar guided weapon systems.
I would love to hear @k_stepanovich updated thoughts on the immediate exploding SARHS of Western fighters.
3 Likes
Not quite so-unlike the USA, the USSR never hid that they were developing on the basis of German documents …
- Guidance systems (Radar / Thermal/Television)-were first developed in Germany…
2.Non-contact fuses (Optical/Infrared/Radio fuses)-also appeared for the first time in Germany… - In the USSR, work was carried out in parallel and did not lag far behind the United States in time-the first launches of K-8 missiles From the Yak-27K were made in 1957…The K-8 rocket was ready by mid-1958…But the I-75 fighter for which it was created due to the refinement of the Eagle radar was not adopted…
Spoiler
- The rocket in the R-8M (K-8-2) variant was adopted in May 1960…
- The United States is not the inventor of Passive Radar Guidance weapon systems …
6.The USA is a pioneer in the creation of Active Radar Homing (ARH) systems…homing anti-ship planning bomb ASM-N-2 Bat(1945)…
3 Likes
I never said the US was the inventor of passive weapon systems.
Thanks for sharing though, I will read through these now.
Your history is only slightly off.
ASM-N-2 Bat is NOT active homing.
The US invented semi active radar guided air launched munitions for both air and surface targets. If you say they invented active radar homing I would say yeah, probably that too.
AAM-A-1 Firebird
Would you like to know the years these were developed and placed in service?
Additional note. There is no such thing as a passive radar guidance weapon system.
If its radar guided, a signal must be emitted from either the missile or host aircraft which can be detected. Therefore, it is not passive homing like that of IR missiles which emit zero electromagnetic emissions but only seek and receive.
Semi active radar missiles such as the Aim7 are called so because they must rely on radar emissions of the host aircraft to walk the missile to target. Where the “active” part comes in is that many sparrows like the M are equipped with additional technologies to help guide the missile on its own such as autopilot computer and midcourse correction in the likely event signal interruption occurs from the host aircraft’s radar over the great distance and time it takes the Aim7s to target. However, in order to precisely strike a target, signal must be reestablished in the terminal phase.
NONE of those technologies are modelled in game and the sparrow’s warhead intentionally detonates upon signal loss. Why?
You tell me.
2 Likes
American team syndrome
1 Like
Yup.
Win rate percentages drastically drop for the US after a patch drop as new players come to the game. Spam premiums or outright buy 12.3 fighters and have no idea how to fly them.
GJ should not nerf competing nations fighters because of it and just let those players get better on their own. I did it and everyone else will too.
I never fly the US tech tree right after an update. It ends up being you getting targeted by 6 other opponents after they immediately cleared out the whole US team that was migrating like flock of geese toward the middle of the map.
1 Like
They are the reason US stuff is undertiered. the F-15 WR will stabilise after some time imo, especially once the 12.3 vs 12.3 time is over, and they start getting 11.3-12.3 matches. Right now its a team full of clueless F-15s vs actual players
The only thing that i feel is lacking in F-15 is HMD, but that is a historical thing, after having HMS not having it feels bad
1 Like
Wiser words have never been spoken
Man, F15C with BOLs and JHMCS would be pretty nutty. And well, god damn working sparrow.
1 Like
In the game target is illuminated by separate antenna with beam width wider than main lobe width of the radar, but narrower than FLOOD antenna beam width. The power allows to have lock on fighter-sized target at 40 km. There is no such logic like continuous waveform switch attempts.
It is still unclear if the same HPRF signal is used both for tracking and illumination or there is two HPRF different waveforms. Waveform for tracking must be optimal for the given radar, waveform for illumination must be missile seeker compatible. In the game it is assumed that two different HPRF waveforms are used and switched in time-division manner - that is why RWR can detect misssile launch now.
The same is for SARH-capable AN/APG-66/65/68 versions.
2 Likes
I have this information… Ламповые солдаты свободы: самонаводящаяся бомба ASM-N-2 “Bat” (livejournal.com)
the first missile with a Passive Radar Homing Head GAR-1/AIM-4…
Spoiler
1 Like
When SARH missiles were introduced they were keeping control fins deflected into the last position, calculated by the autopilot, during the time the seeker lost its target.
This worked too good : hit rate 3–5 seconds after the target lose (if you intentionally drop target tracking a well) was really high - we received multiple reports like “AIM-7 turns to AMRAAM” and reworked the missile so the control fins are set into neutral position after the target lose. This makes the missile to fly straight w/o lateral acceleration, which causes the missile quickly miss direction to the target interception point because of constantly changing missile speed.
7 Likes
This is a typo in the machine translator…Sometimes “intelligent” translation based on machine learning of user messages is included in the translation…if you don’t check, there may be errors, especially in aviation terms…
Semi-active radar homing system (SARH) is a type of missile guidance system, air-to-air and ground-to-air long-range. The name refers to the fact that the missile itself is just a passive radar signal detector…
Lol I can so see reports/complaints with the title “Aim7 turns to AMRAAM”.
Yes, I agree it would have been way too potent at the time, especially the number of sparrows western fighters can carry, but that was upon release, right?
Being that we are in the realm of 4th generation high performing fighters and the Sukhoi can equip 6x R27ERs.
Don’t you think now that an increase in amount of time a player has a chance to reacquire a target is called for? Not by insane amounts of time or that of the R27ER, but just a little more. It seems you guys have already done so slightly recently. Perhaps, just 12.3 fighters?
I think keeping the control fin reset to neutral position upon signal loss is probably a good thing. It just that the very short amount of time before detonation is becoming a greater disadvantage to the user as newer high performing aircraft come in each update.
Anyway, thanks for the insight. I can see achieving game balance can be quite the juggling act.
2 Likes
KS-1 (abbreviated from “Comet-projectile”, product “B”, GRAU index — 4K87, according to the classification of the US and NATO MOD — AS-1 “Kennel”)…
On September 8, 1947, the Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR No. 3140-1028 was issued on R&D, during which it was supposed to create anti-ship projectile aircraft with a firing range of 100 km …
The first flight of the manned prototype “K” was performed on January 4, 1951…
In 1953, the “Comet” was officially adopted, although it was launched in series a year earlier (1952)…
Guidance system: semi-active radar radar (target illumination from a carrier aircraft)…
At the first stage of the flight, the on-board missile control system kept it inside the guidance station beam (taking into account the readings of the barometric altimeter). Usually the flight altitude was 400 m above the surface of the water, and the speed was 1060-1200 km/h. When approaching the target at a distance of 10-20 km, the on-board radar of the K-2 rocket captured the beam of the K-1 guidance station reflected from the target, after which the Comet control switched to homing mode…
Spoiler
1 Like
You might be right. The Firebird is radar guided but I have not looked into it much on exactly how it operates.
It’s definitely not actively guided.
Ask for AIM-7P…
1 Like
I do agree, to a certain extent.
However, just like aircraft models that may not be performing in a reasonable manner according to technical capability/balance, we should not give up and throw up our hands just to ask for a better one.
Because in doing so though it may lead to a better game experience for a moment, this process will continually repeat itself and produce forgotten, unfinished models throughout the entirety of any given tech tree.
Same principle goes for weapon systems like missiles and radars applications. That’s just the way I see it from my limited perspective.
I have no idea what @k_stepanovich truly experiences in modelling these things and can only imagine the many elements/parameters that must be considered that are completely outside of a particular weapon systems technical capability alone.
1 Like