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.
the F-14A radar is dogshit
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.
With a 99% probability, the PARG-13VV(R-3P) has CW guidance…
3 Likes
No, just that the missile can’t initialize a track against Chaff as it obviously gets rejected by said check and subsequently returns to scanning the frequency (Velocity space) range (NARROW speedgate settings involves Target closure rate at time of launch +/-150kts, where WIDE is the entire range, but bypasses the Speedgate, and is mostly used for Counter-Jamming mode(s) ) for a target, so pre-chaffing is effectively useless against the missile.
Not that it’s guidance can’t be momentarily degraded by chaff. Which itself should be taken care of by the conical scanning seeker’s nutation reducing sensitivity & duty cycle significantly as the angular distance to false contacts increases, leading to perturbations from the optimal flight path.
Since chaff is comparatively fixed in space due to high drag of flat plates / fibers in free air, the rapid reduction in velocity would be encoded in the returned signal and squelched by the Speedgate in short order, due to the deployment time for the Chaff cloud to reach a similar RCS to the true target there is a short window where the return would not be filtered and so need to be constantly deployed to have an impact.
As the net received energy would be slightly higher in said sector of the scan a subsequent deflection biased towards the chaff stream would be commanded by the Guidance and Control section (the severity of the actual deviation of the missile depends on which specific autopilot band and so depend heavily on geometry of scenario; “Band A” likely has a coefficient that is less than one, “Band B” greater than one and “Band C” commands Bang-Bang deflection of the control surfaces. This only applies to the AIM-7C / -7D / -7E variants and was changed with the -7F), which reduces in the terminal phase of flight as it falls outside of the FoR of the seeker as it closes on the target.
That would be a nice report if you can find acceptable sources.
But is the RP-21/22 even capable of emitting a CW signal (for the missile to home on)?
Ingame MiG-29 turns sharper than F14A but the problem is the rate, 2C both F14s A and B variants will eventually win due to their energy retention, but that’s 100% an instructor issue.
With mouse aim f14 without combat flaps pulls 19 degrees of Aoa, do you know how much the mig29 does? 21.9! This results in an absurd amount of energy bleeding which makes the fulcrum lose the 2C fight. If you have enough free time to spend i recommend watching some content about trim so you can use it for ratefights with the mig29, it’s kinda boring and annoying but it’s really useful.
The Leading edge slats & flaps (and glove vanes) on the F-14s currently do not follow the correct schedule and deploy when they shouldn’t, and are not going to be fixed so it’s no surprise that the F-14’s performance is wrong.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/9d7ZQcU4uV1J
1 Like
I’m kinda clueless ab that issue but i was referring solely to their performance for gameplay reasons like, regardless if it’s accurate or not, it currently outrates the 29 in mouse aim due to one pulling a lot more than the other, and instructor isn’t a real life thing so it’s entirely up to the devs to setup.
Best scenario would be the addition of a mechanic to allow the player to adjust the instructor by himself imo
1 Like
The mig21 bis is comparable to the f4e/f4f, but beats the hardwing phantoms in a dogfight.
functionally the AIM-7E-2 in-game has a monopulse seeker but that’s purely to Gaijin failing to model the differences between various CW seeker types and instead simply modelling them all as if they were monopulse
would be nice to see it properly modelled sometime, it’d give Sky Flash and R-23R the historical advantages that made them somewhat noteworthy historically, possibly alongside rebalancing of AIM-7F platforms w/ new BRs to reflect the lower lookdown capability or better IR missiles to compensate
edit: shoulda scrolled further down turns out there was already a slap fight about it i missed smh
On that same token, functionally, none of them do.
How much impulse does the R-23 have btw? Supposedly it has a best impulse to weight of about 50 kgf/kg for around 11100 kgf thrust.
The claimed ~16800 kgf impulse for AIM-7F is ~14500. (Details below)
Keeping that ratio, impulse is ~8630 kgf. Vs ~11100 kgf for R-23. Advantage about 19% for R-23 over 7E (not F!) if AIM-7E is 205 kg
On paper it’s about 2.9s x 3447 kg, but shares the issue with other US data outlined here;
“Americans have some strange and awkward method when presenting these thurst numbers, and when ever chamber pressure is close to 1000 psi (69 bar) and when ever full expansion through the nozzle from that pressure is close to atmospheric pressure of 14,7 psi (1,013 bar) it is OK, but when something other is case, like here, presented numbers are not real or true numbers.”
1 Like
Thrust is not constant in real life, instead Gaijin will generally give the average thrust & burn time to meet the total impulse numbers +/- a percentage. Then they adjust the drag value to meet performance criteria in a scenario of middle altitudes 5-10km or so.
This means that most radar missiles will slightly overperform at sea level and underperform in high alt, very high speed scenarios.
This method is slightly less realistic than the DCS methods, but who knows what they are doing these days now that ED has taken over complete control of ordnance modeling in the game.
Gaijin is not infallible either, as the AIM-7F has well over 20%+ additional impulse in-game compared to the real world counterpart. iirc it has ~37,000s total impulse and the real world missile is only ~30,000s. (23% increase?)
Of course, but can find a common ground to compare.
Total impulse is 14425.9 kgf (31800 lb) at 20k feet launch using 250 ISP, which is a rather optimal condition.
Why are you using a generic 250 ISP, and that’s obviously far too low for 20k feet.
We have exact thrust and burn time charts for AIM-7F with fuel fractions, mass, shape of the propellant grain, etc. Gaijin has ignored these and chosen to leave it as-is I can only assume as a balancing decision to better match the R-27ER without being too obvious.
1 Like
You just got told that they have
I am still standing by my words, lol