Could you show me where the missing posts are? Seems I made a little over 3k on the last forum. I’ve been more active on this one.
You can’t even stop lying about something as easy to look up as the number of posts someone’s made and you sit here to complain about some bias… claim things are overperforming constantly when they’re just fine and underperforming when they’re precisely not… etc etc…
I’m not sure I follow what you’re saying here. Let’s put this nonsense to rest, I advise you increase the number of productive things you post because right now 90%+ of your commentary is just not useful to the threads they are in.
On a sidenote, I have been reading about the Sparrows guidance I can’t seem to find anything to suggest they have a method of continuing towards targets last known position after illumination is lost…
AIM-7Ms dont, maybe AIM-7MHs do with their enhanced memory, AIM-7Ps probably have something like that too, atleast the later P’s
Illumination being lost is the main problem. The NATO/US radars are modeled so bad you would think they are from 1950. The F-15a radar is a joke. If you can defend that model you are 100% a Russian bias scab. End of discussion.
The F-15a radar model is just as bad if not worse than the original F-16 flight model they tried to pass to us. Time and time again something has to be nerfed. US cant have the trinity. Good flight model, good missiles, good radar. One of those 3 things must be gimped artificially while Russian jets over perform in all 3.
This bias needs to stop. Its a joke and ruins the game.
The purpose of the enhanced memory for the AIM-7MH is to add additional target information pre-launch to help aid tracking in ECCM environments but I am not sure that can be used to store track data mid-guidance. There is no inertial updates or lofting incorporated specifically to that upgrade.
There are open reports on the issue, please be patient and wait for things to be looked at and adjusted.
Likewise there are much older reports for the now obsolete MiG-23 radar that would otherwise similarly buff it. They aren’t picking and choosing here. Wait your turn.
track data is not hard to store for a missile with updated with a digital autopilot computer…
Aim7M…
7MH specifcally can loft if the loft HUD mode is selected, its the only airforce sparrow that lofts though it doesnt do it through midcourse guidance but rather it calculates its time to target and lofts at a 30 degree angle for a 1/3 of that time, its like a scuffed loft since its all precalculated before launch
The standard AIM-7M lofts, the AIM-7MH model retained the feature.
An F-15 weapons delivery manual specifcally states the M cannot loft like the 7F but the MH can
Remember when people like you said,
“Be patient its just the dev server, things will change.”
Well they didnt. Imagine that. The dev server barely changed to live. Where are all those people now including yourself? Oh now its be patient they are working on it? Says who? Just like they are working on the Aim-54C? Remember that one? How much documentation have they provided in that thread to get that buffed with no answers in sight. No buff ever coming? But yea…be patient. Sure.
Also I dont know what your on about with the Mig-23. That radar works fine and better than any NATO radar Ive used. It holds lock, can break lock and I can relock and missiles still land just fine. You have no idea what your talking about and are probably just making something up to sound like its on equal footing when its not. Nice try though.
History proves me right and you wrong time and time again. Your turn.
Are you indicating the AIM-7F lofts but AIM-7M doesn’t until the H-build upgrade?
What year was the manual?
no im indicating the 7F and M do not loft but the MH does, I’ll PM you the piece of the manual though that talks about it though
The moment other active radar missiles come in and the Aim54 is still not modelled correctly, only then would I be worried.
It will be modelled. I promise you, remember me if it doesn’t and I will give you 5k GE.
You have my word.
Just like TWS will magically start working as it should and not break/change soft lock at random?
I suspect the TWS thing will be fixed, but the Aim-54’s will remain gimped by Russian bias. Those things got the full weight of Russian anger towards NATO and were nerfed before they even entered game. They will never function as they should.
They wont even give the F-14B Aim9M’s. Why would they upgrade anything else for it like the Aim-54C? Your going to owe me 5k GE…
Lol we will see!
Let me lay out the parameters of this agreement.
I got you 5k GE if the Aim54 platform (A or C) still does not have an updated model in regard to flight performance or guidance by the time the next batch of active radar missiles come to the game. If it has one of the mentioned feature updates, I am free of this debt.
BUT If I win you owe 1,000 written sentences that say, “I will always love WT and the Snail.” (just kidding)
I cannot speak on TWS or other more advanced abilities such as manipulation of multiple altering frequencies, filter and translate those radar returns into usable target data packages/pictures to successfully mask a missile launch and guide it successfully to the terminal. It gets a little too fancy for me at this point and I have not looked into the subject in depth.
Being that TWS gets even more complex in the already annoying study of radar applications, I do not see how GJ can be biased in on this feature.
One user has time away for his insults… more will follow if harassment and or insults continue…
This will remain Civilized… at this point, if harassment continues, then some will be looking at a month away from our Forum for their trouble since previous warnings have been ignored…
Every sensible player on this forums has been advocating for that. However Gaijin wouldn’t allow it, because from business side of things, it’s better for them to make AMRAAMs and its “counterparts” a theme for a seperate update. I’m pretty sure their implementation of missiles and radars would leave as at status quo we know today in 7M vs R-27ER days.
Though @k_stepanovich has sufficiently put my worries to rest by indicating that he is already well aware of which sparrow variant can do what in the event of signal loss (CW illumination from host aircraft) and confirms that it is possible to reacquire signal for available variants in game. He also further offers clarification on why the models control fins reset to neutral position behaves as is. Simply for balance.
I actually totally agree there.
However, I do believe an extension in the length of time to require target track for newer sparrow variants after launch is called for in today’s meta. Specifically, the Aim7M
I would like to put to rest any community belief that only until as recently as 1987 (Aim-7P) there is no sparrow that has an ability to calculate optimal trajectory toward last known target track in the event target illumination is dropped.
In fact, the Aim7M had the ability and was equipped with a digital computer and autopilot to fly an optimal course designed and implemented specifically to increase the reliability/success rate of the sparrow in the very likely event that target illumination may cease. (often occurring several times during the duration of its flight).
Here is a link in regard to the Aim-7 series of missiles taken from the Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. A site which is a copyright collection of complied data regarding US. military applications. Raytheon AIM/RIM-7 Sparrow (designation-systems.net) Primary sources listed by title provided as well.
In regard to the Aim7M:
The next version of the AIM-7 was the AIM-7M , whose main new feature was the new inverse monopulse seeker for look-down/shoot-down capability in a new WGU-6/B (later WGU-23/B) guidance section. There is no evidence of any Sparrow variants officially designated -7J/K/L (although the designation AIM-7J is sometimes associated with the AIM-7E license-built in Japan).
Source [2] says that the suffix “M” was deliberately chosen to mean “monopulse”, suggesting that suffixes J/K/L were indeed skipped. The monopulse seeker improves missile performance in low-altitude and ECM environments.
Other new features of the AIM-7M are a digital computer (with software in EEPROM modules reprogrammable on the ground), an autopilot, and an active fuze. The autopilot enables the AIM-7M to fly optimized trajectories, with target illumination necessary only for mid-course and terminal guidance. The AIM-7M also has a new WDU-27/B blast-fragmentation warhead in a WAU-17/B warhead section. The first firing of a YAIM-7M occured in 1980, and the AIM-7M entered production in 1982.
The Aim7M is equipped with a digital computer and autopilot ability to fly an optimized trajectory without a target track the entire duration of its flight. The Aim7M only requires a target illumination for a midcourse update and a target illumination for terminal guidance/target precision. That is, it.
There is already a perfectly reasonable competitor to the R27ER, and we had it in WT just as long, The AIM-7M. It simply needs more of its capability implemented in game to compete.
Regarding an R27ER vs AIM-120 “advocation”.
There is really no “sensible” reason why any USSR tech tree users should remain stuck sitting there babysitting a single target track for an R27ER launch leaving themselves completely exposed while western fighters can launch multiple Aim-120s into a crowd of enemies, immediately turn around and fly off into the sunset before ever placing themselves in any danger.
I do not think you both fully understand how great of a tactical advantage active radar missiles such as the Aim-120 AMRAAM have over semi active radar missiles. It has nothing to do with business, but sheer technical capability. The Aim-120 should never come to game without the Soviet/Russian or Chinese counterpart.
At this point you’ve humiliated yourself enough times that you probably shouldn’t ever mention the reading comprehension skills of other people.
I’m fairly certain early AMRAAMs will be outranged/outclassed by R-27ER. Knowing GJN, I wouldn’t be surprised if they are barely more useful than AIM54s when they are introduced.