You just got told that they have
I am still standing by my words, lol
The 29K doesnt get a MAWS from what I know and therefor lacks any countermeasure improvement over the 29A (from everything I know)
the 29M/M2 would get those, although at the current state of the game with the EF and Rafale added I think the MiG-29M2 would be much more fitting game balance wise (AESA radar, MAWS, lots of countermeasures etc.)
29K could be a good counterpart to the F18C tho!
They do not have a pulse Doppler seeker head and what you said indicated a lack of understanding on your part. Stand by whatever you want, proof is in the pudding.
It says that the R-23R burns for 3 seconds, but in WT it burns for like 1.85 seconds iirc?
If so is it underperforming in burn time? And is the R-24 also in this condition as it burns for 3 seconds so maybe it has a longer burn time?
I explained this already, the missiles in-game do not have a dynamic thrust. It is a set number and a set burn time. In real life the thrust ramps up from 0 to 100% as the propellant grain begins to burn and then ramps down again as it runs out. More modern missiles have specific grain patterns to intentionally modify the thrust in a dynamic manner … i.e. boost-sustain, progressive burn, etc.
The R-24R should also burn longer IRL than it does in-game and that is what available documentation shows. How Gaijin models them takes the total impulse of the motor and finds an average thrust to give it the correct acceleration, or as close as it can get.
Beyond the thrust over time slope that is not a static number as stated previously, there is also atmospheric conditions. Thrust and burn time change drastically for missiles depending on altitude, pressure, temperature. The R-60 is an example in-game, having a 3s burn time instead of a 5s burn time as stated for specific scenarios in the manual.
Can you please explain what difference does a “pulse doppler” seeker makes over a “doppler” seeker (which is what AIM-7E-2 is) in the game and IRL?
His argument was that the R-3R is easily chaff-able while AIM-7E is not, which is correct.
Doppler vs pulse doppler seeker in this context is a distinction without a difference …
2 Likes
This is quickly becoming circular
Yes, because you insist that somehow R-3R is in the same league as AIM-7E based on some irrelevant gibberish like “First monopulse AIM-7 was AIM-7M” or how “AIM-7E doesn’t have a pulse doppler seeker” like that even makes any difference in this context …
Then when asked to explain what difference those even make (since you claim to have a much better understanding than @Merf_HD which is just clueless in your view) you immediately switch channel and go on a rant about “this is a waste of time and let’s not get into an argument and this is getting circular blah blah”
Then 5 minutes later you switch the channel again and resume the nonsensical argument of “but AIM-7E is not pulse doppler” …
Either stop trying to call the other guy clueless or explain what difference does a “pulse doppler” seeker make and how that puts AIM-7E-2 in the same league as R-3R in WT, since you claim "you have a solid understanding of the topic unlike @Merf_HD "
I declared that was an in-game distinction, yes. In real life the earliest AIM-9 copies and modifications may not have performed as well as an AIM-7E in a vacuum but the reliability of both would have been roughly equivalent. As far as real world scenarios, both have about equal chance of downing a target and the pK was very poor.
The comparison differs far greater when you look at the AIM-7E vs R-23R. The R-23R simply outclasses it in nearly every way. The R-24R just that much more so.
He assumed that pulse doppler was a seeker type and that the AIM-7E had one. He didn’t know what that meant or why it didn’t apply to the AIM-7E the way he thought it did and that was more than evident. We’ve had this conversation already.
My argument;
His;
All totally false
The dude couldn’t spell “sure” correctly and referred to them as “sparrows” as though they all have a PD seeker - which they don’t have. AIM-7’s did not initially receive seekers capable of guiding on pulse doppler waveforms and the first notable one worth mentioning is the AIM-7F. The AIM-7M was the first to use a monopulse seeker type and this gave it a pretty big advantage over earlier models in look down or low altitude situations not to mention against ECCM.
What you are doing is baiting and it isn’t worth my time. I’ll reply to Merf going forward if he really cares to learn anything, else find a way to participate in the conversation without using a loaded line of questioning.
Do you know if it is true that all the sparrows besides the 7m (or any missile without a monopulse seeker) would just miss if a Mig21 had its jamming pod equipped.
Heard it before and wanted to ask someone that also knows some stuff on sarh seekers
1 Like
@Merf_HD in the simplest terms you don’t only need a radar that is able to do look down, shoot down but the missile also needs to be able to do that.
Compatibility issues aside you couldn’t mount a aim7e on a f15 and expect to kill someone in a look down scenario, as the missile itself is unable to filter out the ground clutter.
It is necessary for both the missile and the radar to be able to filter out ground clutter.
The Aim7m was the first US sarh that was capable of look down/ shoot down
AFAIK the argument wasn’t about look-down shoot-down.
His point was that the R-3R is easily chaff-able, while AIM-7E-2 is not … (Yes, F-4E’s radar is not pulse doppler, but once you lock someone and launch the missile and the speed gate is set, the missile is gonna follow the target and be highly resistant to chaff, due to the speed gating / doppler filtering)
This whole argument about “pulse doppler” and “monopulse” seekers is irrelevant as neither of those affects chaff resistance in the game.
A simple doppler seeker gives you all the chaff resistance that you need via the speed gate.
And even IRL, sure, a conical scan doppler seeker might not be as good as a monopulse one of the same era, but it will still be miles ahead of a pulse seeker in terms of chaff resistance; Again, thanks to the doppler filtering.
3 Likes
All sparrows past 7C do doppler processing enabling it out to filter clutter, aka lookdown/shootdown and even more aka PD seeker.
E4s hitting targets down to 100ft from stern using boresight.
Mig doesn’t know what he’s talking about regarding this and is just on semantics trying lose anybody in the rambles and save face.
You can’t use them simply because Es used CW signal for the doppper and APG-63/65s guide sparrows through the main HPRF signal it used to track.
Monopulse/conical scan in this context doesn’t mean if a seeker is pd or not. It just refers to the method the seeker’s antenna uses to to track the target’s angular position.
Conical scan just nutates around the targets direction, if the energy level is constant during a rotation then the target is in the center of rotation’s axis(center). If for example at theta=pi the energy is higher than at theta=0, then it means that the target has shifted to the left and the antenna must move the axis(center) to the left till the energy remains constant. And in a loop, you are tracking the targets direction. The downside is that you scan a MCUH larger area rather than just the beamwidth of the seeker.
Examples of systems using this method: Phantom’s radar, 7C-7F etc.
Monopulse just divides the antenna into quadrants and takes the sum/difference of up/down quadrants for vertical displacement and left/right for horizantal displacement. The seeker aims directly to the target. If the target is in the center the energy is equal among all 4 quadrants. If the sum energy on the left quadrants is higher than the energy sum of the right quadrants then is means that the target has moved to the left and you must move the antenna to the left till the energy is equal again. Do this in a loop and you are tracking the targets angular direction. Compared to conical scan the area around the target scanned is just the beamwidth of the antenna.
Examples: APG-63/65s, N001s, N019s, R27R/ER, Cyrano 2(mirage 3), 7M sparrow etc.
See, nothing regarding pd, downlook, pulse etc. That’s signal processing. Mirage 3 is a radar not employing doppler processing yet it tracks targets angular direction with a monopulse antenna, same as the APG-66(F-16s) when using LPRF(“pulse”) waveform. And then others using doppler processing but not using monopulse but conical scan such as the F4Js radar in HPRF.
4 Likes
because AIM-7D/Es hitting target in downlook isn’t real
-
AIM-7E
lookdown/ high clutter environment
4 m^2 target size
target at launch: target at 200 ft - M0.62
fighter at launch: F4 at 10,000 ft - M1.1
distance 6.8 N.M
Head-on
3ft miss, success. -
AIM-7E
lookdown/ high clutter environment
4.1 m^2 target size
target at launch: target at 300 ft - M0.5
fighter at launch: F4 at 300 ft - M0.44
distance 6 N.M
22° off target’s nose
7ft miss, success -
AIM-7D
lookdown/ large aspect
3.8 m^2 target size
target at launch: target at 2,900ft - M0.53
fighter at launch: F4 at 7,300 ft - M0.59
distance 2.2 N.M
22° off target’s tail
direct hit, success.
2 Likes
E4 can only hit targets in such conditions because it is a specifically modified Sparrow intended for use on the F-14, all prior models when used on the F-4E will not be using any Doppler effect because the F-4E hasn’t a PD radar. A “pulse Doppler seeker” as he describes it makes no sense especially in regard to the F-4E Phantom. It’s nonsense.
The success rate for the Sparrows you’re discussing was extraordinarily low IRL. These test conditions and documents don’t seem to reflect that.
I never claimed the aim-7s on the F4s are completly ignoring ground clutter and chaff
But its an undeniable fact that the Sparrows are harder to chaff than R3Rs (and they are much harder to outpull too)
I only said they have a PD seeker, not that they are immune to ground clutter
And in the conditions I mentioned both are about equally difficult to avoid. Head-on launch at altitude.
you are comparing a R3R to a Aim-7E, you are a special kind of breed.
Im not gonna argue about this, its the same as saying “the F16 and MiG-21 are equally deadly if they hit you with their gun”
Yes, the both R3R and aim-7 will hit you if you are stupid enough to fly at 10km alt and go headon into R3R range while you have a substentially larger range and apparently 0 access to chaff
you´re making up a completly unrealistic situation that would never happen in the game - the aim-7E is useable in many more situation, harder to dodge and has more range - it is a factually better missle
uhh, guys ?
I don’t think the r3r or aim7 have anything related to the 29s…:D
7 Likes
true
Ill praise the addition of the MiG-29K and 29M2
we need those ingame ASAP, I want more MiGs
4 Likes