Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29 Fulcrum - History, Design, Performance & Dissection

[sudo_su1]

@MiG_23M

Why is this being explained to me, Merf is the guy who was stating the AIM-7E has a “PD seekerhead”

Well, it does
AIM-7 (including AIM-7E) has a PD seeker

In the game only AIM-9C, R-3R and early French radar missiles don’t have a PD seeker (and use a pulse seeker instead, which is subject to ground clutter and chaff; Though the 530F seems to have gotten a smidge of chaff resistance lately, but it’s still nothing compared to the missiles with a PD seeker such as AIM-7).

In the game you can tell the PD seekers apart by the fact that their stat card lists “Shoot down” capability (previously it would say “CW”) and in the config file you have a doppler speed gate:

 "dopplerSpeedGate": {
          "filterAlpha": 0.2,
          "filterBetta": 0.02,
          "rateLimit": [
            100.0,
            250.0
          ],
          "limitTimeOut": 1.0,
          "dopplerSpeedGateSearchRange": 150.0
        }

[MiG_23M]

@sudo_su1

In the game only

There you have it

Technically, they don’t though. The in-game model has benefits and drawbacks from both types and doesn’t really distinguish between the two very well.

[kizvy]

Well, probably because gaijin doesn’t model the differences between inverse monopulse and conical seekerhead because it would be bad for the game?

[sudo_su1]

@MiG_23M

There you have it

Technically, they don’t though. The in-game model has benefits and drawbacks from both types and doesn’t really distinguish between the two very well

Not sure if you mean that AIM-7E shouldn’t have a PD seeker or that the R-3R should have one.

Either way do you have any evidence for it?
Because the way it’s implemented in the game right now, is actually quite correct. (AIM-7E should and does have a PD seeker)

Monopulse PD seekers (AIM-7M) are currently no different from conical scan PD seekers (AIM-7F) but that’s because the devs do not currently acknowledge any practical difference in the capabilities of these two kinds of PD seekers.

[MiG_23M]

If I recall, stepanovich stated that it would overcomplicate things and as we can see … the current state of radar mechanics are in shambles so that’s probably accurate.

@sudo_su1

Not sure if you mean that AIM-7E shouldn’t have a PD seeker or that the R-3R should have one.

I didn’t say either should or shouldn’t, neither had one IRL. I am speaking to the real world characteristics of the seeker and the use-cases in-game. Both are equally suited for head-on conditions at high altitude and neither can be considered “BVR” ordnance.

@sudo_su1

Either way do you have any evidence for it?

Yes, I actually have primary documentation for both missiles. There is nothing to report because neither has a pulse doppler seeker IRL or in-game.

@sudo_su1

that’s because the devs do not currently acknowledge any practical difference

That’s incorrect, they acknowledged the differences but explained why they are modeled as they are once upon a time. I can’t be bothered to go find the comments from Stepanovich.

[sudo_su1]

@MiG_23M

Yes, I actually have primary documentation for both missiles. There is nothing to report because neither has a pulse doppler seeker IRL or in-game.

Unless you are trying to nitpick on the semantics and say “it has a doppler seeker, not a pulse doppler seeker” which is irrelevant here.

Having a doppler seeker allows the AIM-7 to essentially ignore chaff and ground clutter, unlike pulse seekers of the AIM-9C, R-3R and early French radar guided missiles.

[MiG_23M]

It doesn’t work the way you think it does, both are still susceptible to clutter especially in regard to multipath and use of chaff or ECCM. It does not give it the advantages of an inverse monopulse seeker in look down scenarios.

Actually, since we’re in the MiG-29 thread I’ll take this time to declare that the R-23R used an inverse monopulse seeker and inertial guidance, lock on after launch capability prior to the AIM-7 series. They stagnated only after the introduction of the R-27R/ER and lost due to the collapse of the Soviet Union - else the introduction of the R-77 may very well have occurred prior to the AMRAAM as well.

@sudo_su1

Having a doppler seeker allows the AIM-7 to essentially ignore chaff and ground clutter, unlike pulse seekers of the AIM-9C, R-3R and early French radar guided missiles.

Most very early French radar missiles had methods of countering chaff and ground clutter that was more comprehensive than the American stuff and likewise the Russian ordnance did, too.

[sudo_su1]

@MiG_23M

Yes, I actually have primary documentation for both missiles. There is nothing to report because neither has a pulse doppler seeker IRL or in-game.

@MiG_23M

It doesn’t work the way you think it does, both are still susceptible to clutter especially in regard to multipath and use of chaff or ECCM. It does not give it the advantages of an inverse monopulse seeker in look down scenarios.

LOL
First you were insisting that it doesn’t have a pulse doppler seeker “IRL or in-game”, now you change your argument to “doppler seeker doesn’t give you the advantages of a monopulse seeker in lookdown scenarios”.

I’m not saying conical scan doppler seekers are as good as monopulse doppler seekers (IRL; in the game there’s no difference because the radar dev was not convinced that there’s any difference IRL).

But obviously doppler seekers are inherently much more clutter and chaff resistant than pulse seekers.

There’s a reason why AIM-9C was a failure …
And why pulse radar seekers fell out of favor and everyone (including the French) switched to doppler seekers.

Anyways, the original discussion was about the in-game performance of F-4E and MiG-21’s missiles, and in the game AIM-7 is obviously much better than R-3R; in large part thanks to its doppler seeker (which is much more chaff and clutter resistant).

@MiG_23M

Most very early French radar missiles had methods of countering chaff and ground clutter that was more comprehensive than the American stuff

I’ve heard of that, but I’m not convinced of its performance (IRL).
Pulse seekers are inherently more vulnerable to clutter and chaff, hence why the guys that designed the AIM-7 went with a doppler seeker (and why the French just like everyone else ultimately switched to a doppler seeker as well).

Either way, in the game (which is what the discussion was about), doppler seekers are worlds better than pulse seekers, in terms of clutter and chaff rejection.

[tripod2008]

@MiG_23M

both are still susceptible to clutter especially in regard to multipath and use of chaff

Not in the way you think, chaff fails the coherent return check (see Target Seeker, sub section #16.) and so won’t be tracked by Sparrows.

@sudo_su1

There’s a reason why AIM-9C was a failure

It was the radar / Fire Control system it was attached to, being constrained by the time, and a lack of a second crewmember to run the systems and limited automated processes leading to a task saturated pilot.

Many novel developments were first implemented with the AIM-9C (e.g. Uncaged seeker, Radar Slaving, SEAM and more.) that had significant impacts on later Sidewinder and assorted Electronics development.

Also the AIM-9C is missing a Range Gate, and the F-8’s ACM & Range Burst mode (kludged together method devised to attempt to transfer an IRST track to the Radar, when you could only have one operating at a time due to power draw constraints) that would simplify things and improve ease of use somewhat.

[MiG_23M]

@sudo_su1

LOL
First you were insisting that it doesn’t have a pulse doppler seeker “IRL or in-game”, now you change your argument to “doppler seeker doesn’t give you the advantages of a monopulse seeker in lookdown scenarios”.

It’s not pulse Doppler, the statement made by the other guy made it clear he didn’t understand how the seekers work to begin with. Why is this such a point of contention for you?

@sudo_su1

And why pulse radar seekers fell out of favor and everyone (including the French) switched to doppler seekers

Has a lot more to do with the radar itself than the receiver.

@sudo_su1

Anyways, the original discussion was about the in-game performance of F-4E and MiG-21’s missiles, and in the game AIM-7 is obviously much better than R-3R

MiG-21s at the same BR as AIM-7E and earlier are better equipped than the F-4’s of those BRs.

F-4E is worse off than the MiG-21bis or MiG-23M

F-4J/S are worse off than MiG-23ML+

I don’t know what you’re trying to suggest. If you compare anything to a bracket above it, it will look poor.

@sudo_su1

I’ve heard of that, but I’m not convinced of its performance (IRL).

I doubt it could be worse than the performance shown by AIM-7E.

@tripod2008

Not in the way you think, chaff fails the coherent return check (see Target Seeker, sub section #16.) and so won’t be tracked by Sparrows

Are you implying that the receiver will magically see through chaff

[sudo_su1]

@tripod2008

Also the AIM-9C is missing a Range Gate

From what I can tell it does get a range gate in the game:

"distGate": {
          "filterAlpha": 0.8,
          "filterBetta": 0.05
        }

[sudo_su1]

@MiG_23M

It’s not pulse Doppler

It’s a doppler seeker (I posted the AIM-7 SAC above which literally says that).

Which is what the other guy and subsequently me meant by “pulse doppler” seeker. (i.e. as opposed to pulse seekers, which don’t offer nearly as much clutter and chaff resistance)

[MiG_23M]

If you were mistaken you could have said so, but I still think he just didn’t understand and still doesn’t understand what he’s talking about.

[Henge11220]

10G isn’t even the biggest problem, you can shoot it from behind <1.3 km, target stalls out, missed, second shot 0.8 km, missed (he’s still flying straight)

[sudo_su1]

@MiG_23M

If you were mistaken you could have said so, but I still think he just didn’t understand and still doesn’t understand what he’s talking about

Judging by your earlier responses:

@MiG_23M

F-4E radar is not pulse doppler and neither are the ordnance seekers monopulse.

@MiG_23M

The first AIM-7 with a monopulse seeker was the AIM-7M first introduced in 1982 iirc.

At high altitude neither are dodge-able and the R-3R is less expected to be fired in a head-on generally, performs better on the lower end MiG-21s.

I think you are confusing monopulse doppler seekers with pulse doppler seekers.

Monopulse is not the same thing as pulse doppler.
Doppler (CW) and pulse doppler seekers themselves can be monopulse or conical scan.

As far as the game is concerned there’s no difference between monopulse seekers and conical scan seekers.

And both pulse doppler and doppler (CW) seekers have the same advantage of inherent resistance to chaff and clutter due to the doppler filtering. (Pulse doppler seekers have the additional advantage of being able to measure distance, allowing them to employ range gating or to fly more optimized trajectories instead of proportional navigation)

Regarding the AIM-7E-2 vs R-3R discussion in the game, this whole monopulse pulse vs conical scan or doppler vs pulse doppler (rather than doppler AND pulse doppler vs PULSE) is irrelevant.

AIM-7E-2 has a (conical scan) doppler (CW) seeker.
Now, how good the seeker or the whole missile was in practice IRL is a different story (many things can make a missile fail or miss its target than just the type of antenna or signal or signal processing that it uses).
But in the game this affords AIM-7E-2 very good chaff and clutter rejection.

R-3R on the other hand has a pulse seeker in the game (and I assume IRL) which means it’s extremely susceptible to chaff and ground clutter.

[MiG_23M]

Bad faith argument isn’t going to be worth my time, cheers.
Buddy above can cope about MiG-21 being somehow worse than the F-4E (players begged for it to get mega nerfed for years because it is just THAT good).

[sudo_su1]

@MiG_23M

Bad faith argument isn’t going to be worth my time, cheers.
Buddy above can cope about MiG-21 being somehow worse than the F-4E (players begged for it to get mega nerfed for years because it is just THAT good).

Not sure why it’s a “bad faith argument”.

If you have ever used R-3R and AIM-7E-2 in the game you will know that R-3R is easily chaff-able (and suffers from ground clutter as well, so sometimes doesn’t even go for the target due to ground clutter), while AIM-7E-2 is not.

That’s what the guy meant …

I don’t want to get into the argument of which plane is better … A lot more comes into play when you are comparing two planes.

But there’s really no contest between AIM-7E-2 (dogfight) and R-3R. Again, in large part thanks to AIM-7E-2’s doppler seeker (which basically ignores chaff and ground clutter, at least in the game).

[MiG_23M]

@sudo_su1

Not sure why it’s a “bad faith argument”.

@sudo_su1

If you have ever used R-3R and AIM-7E-2 in the game you will know that R-3R is easily chaff-able (and suffers from ground clutter as well, so sometimes doesn’t even go for the target due to ground clutter), while AIM-7E-2 is not.

@MiG_23M

MiG-21s at the same BR as AIM-7E and earlier are better equipped than the F-4’s of those BRs.

@MiG_23M

It’s not pulse Doppler, the statement made by the other guy made it clear he didn’t understand how the seekers work to begin with. Why is this such a point of contention for you?

You don’t answer my question, instead claim I don’t understand how they work… arguing for the other guy who clearly just doesn’t understand them at all. Bad faith is bad faith and we’re arguing about something now totally off topic to the thread. Not worth continuing.

[AUSChalkWarrior]

@Merf_HD

Another example could be the F14A with the Fakours instead - that thing is 12.3 - gets an INSANE radar with INSANE missiles,

the F-14A radar is dogshit

[ZVO_12_INCH]

In reality, they don’t know!..
The homing heads of the PARG-1/10/12/13/14/15/16 series were created at the NII-648…
CW is a continuous signal in amplitude and frequency…
You can read about the PARG-10VV here.

Авиационная ракета Р-4 (К-80) | Ракетная техника

With a 99% probability, the PARG-13VV(R-3P) has CW guidance…