I imagine the values over land would be different in some way.
An interesting to note is that according to their modelling when the sea state increased from sea state 0 (calm glassy water with no waves) to sea state 3 (0.5 to 1.25 m waves) the effects of specular multipath propagation seem to almost completely disappear:
The paper mentions that having a non-smooth surface results in both specular and diffuse multipath, and that the paper evaluates the specular only. It says specifically that "A higher sea state reduces the coherent (specular) multipath returns and this is reflected in Figures 11 and 12. " This graph seems exclusive to specular, which is why it might be reduced. I would imagine if they added the diffuse return, then it would be greater than that of Sea State 0.
Reference 3 and 8 are supposed to cover diffuse, but unfortunately they’re marked as Restricted / Confidential.
considering the distance we’re fighting at i severly doubt it would have any impact
a look down radar not being able to properly guide a missile under 20 clicks and under 3000m at a non notching target seems a bit ridiculous
modern missiles can intercept low flying antiship missiles, an aster 30 can take down a coyote target practice flying as low as 5 meter (over sea clutter, to make it worse)
the sensor in this missile is derived from the mica em, so 1990’s tech
The AIM-7M would be minimally effected, it’s stuff like the AIM-7F, R-24R, and older missiles which would be greatly effected.
Where do you get the 3,000 m figure from?
It is not 3000m for all missiles, just an average. The actual ‘optimal tracking above this height’ is missile-specific. Older SAHRs like the AIM-7E will probably not work well below 4000m, early-ish SAHRs that are a bit more advanced like the AIM-7E-2 will work well above 3000m while struggling a bit around 2000m and barely functioning below 1000m, and later SAHRs like the AIM-7F will work well above 2500m and struggle above 1500m, and the AIM-7M will only struggle below 500m because of its inverse monopulse seeker.
RIM-7M min alt as per this bug report.
Itd be a pretty bad self defense missile for it to still be widely in use to this day on NATO ships if it could only intercept targets above 500m lmao
Skyflash has also been quoted multiple times as having a min alt of like 35m(?) as well, and has been shown to be unable to hit targets in-game that it could hit irl: Community Bug Reporting System
Here’s another acknowledged bug report regarding excessive multipath, this time for the 7M and AIM-54: Community Bug Reporting System
Multipath is drastically overperforming against at the very least western missiles, as proven by multiple acknowledged bug reports. There’s no reason for it to be as excessive as it is in-game besides the fact its a crutch for bad players, which have flooded top tier because of gaijins addition of top tier premiums.
Older SAHRs like the AIM-7E will probably not work well below 4000m, early-ish SAHRs that are a bit more advanced like the AIM-7E-2 will work well above 3000m while struggling a bit around 2000m and barely functioning below 1000m
The AIM-7E-2 is stated to be “fully effective” so long as the target is above 1,500 m ( 5,000 ft). As the AIM-7E-2 is just an AIM-7E with optional dogfight mode I would expect AIM-7E seeker performance to be pretty much the same.
It should however be noted that AIM-7E performance only “begins to be affected” below that altitude. In real world British testing the AIM-7E-2 still had a 53% (9/17) success rate when fired below the recommended 5,000 ft, with successful hits being achieved as low as 100 ft.
In addition not all of those failures were due to ground clutter:
If you exclude those four missiles the success rate below 5,000 ft becomes 69% (9/13).
So at the moment the altitudes you’re giving seem unrealistically pessimistic. Do you have a reliable source to back them up?
Interesting your source actually even states the 100ft hit is against a stern target, which isnt even optimal firing conditions, and theres no way any of the AIM-7’s ingame could hit that. I dont think any SARH could ingame actually. Maybe the R-27ER since it seems to have the least issues with low alt.
Again, I was giving examples to simulate the idea. I don’t know the actual altitude where those missiles would begin to be affected by ground clutter and ground noise. I just want radar missiles on all ends nerfed.
If missiles like the AIM-7F and AIM-7M were significantly weaker than they are now, Gaijin would need to pull out the unreasonably overpowered R-27ER. I hate it when Gaijin models stuff half-baked, and instead of fully modeling this stuff for the sake of balance, they bring in even more modern half-baked stuff and we are stuck in a situation where we have F-16C-50s fighting the F-104S.ASA and Phantom FGR.2, aircraft a whole generation behind.
The fact is that sparrow’s guidance is underperforming, and western HPRF is half baked