I think they may have overdone it. A week ago, AIM-120A (35G) was more maneuverable than R-77 (50G), which was obviously not normal. Now AAM-4 (32G) is more maneuverable than the AIM-120A (35G), which is also a bit strange.
4 Likes
Shame its almost impossible to bug report as well. It “hits 35g” even if for only a second at peak speed.
That and the community has wholly committed to “AMRAAM bad/OP” so absolutely no traction to be had there.
The finAOA and G-load is gaijin’s balance trick
When some players in forum cry loudly Gaijin would use it.
For example
After the manpad debate last year
9M39 10G 4.185
HN-6 12G 4.5
stinger 13G 4.185
Mistral 16G 3.6
9M37 20G 11.25
Apparently some premium CAS players cry so loud that gaijin made unreasonable decisions to nerf the mistral.
1 Like
Don’t forget that they increased AIM-120A’s guidance delay from 0.3 to 0.5 seconds, so the other missiles start maneuvering much sooner at Mach 0.3, while MICA starts maneuvering at Mach 0.15. Guidance delay is a big part of these missile’s maneuverability at close range.
@dark_claw I got a request to make
Could you do a no-loft analysis of all the medium BVR ARHs like you did for the Fakour/Phoenix?
In fact, no-loft speed-time is mainly used to illustrate the quality of “rocket” - not “missile”.
The LOFT trajectory has a great impact on the actual missile’s performance, the most typical example is the difference between MICA and Derby. In fact, these analyses of the F-90 are done to show the effect of thrust changes on rocket performance.
At present, I think the more appropriate way to evaluate missiles is to test the time it takes to reach the target, the terminal speed and the available overload at that time. but this evaluation method still makes it difficult to evaluate the efficiency of missiles against F-pole enemies (because the AI jets placed by the mission editor cannot accurately fly according to the waypoints) and the efficiency of missiles hitting complex maneuvering enemies (which is greatly affected by PID, not only the problem of available overload).
That is in fact what I would like a look at.
Overall yes, that is what should be looked at. However, I’m still curious on the pure kinetics of the missiles.
I am seraching comments on whether thie claim is true (the way they program the code) or not. Do you merely think that the mechanics works this way or you confirmed by digging the code/ perform comparison experiment?
If this is true, after pitbull point and while the target is notching the missile, since the respective angles from your missile and your jet can be set up differently, keep a lock is helpful.
Moreover under that assumption two more subtle questions for you:
- data link from jet, and, pitbull search itself, which is of higher priority in the command of missile? (I have heard that the latter is of higher priority.)
- the above two which cope notching/chaffing better?
The data link is absolutely important.If the pitbull missile fails to acquire the target, the seeker will switch to search mode and use DL+IOG.
Although the seeker can lock on to a head-on target at 16 kilometers. BUT the effective tracking distance of the active missile seeker to the side of the target is very short.So when facing a target turning sideways, the data link can effectively guide the missile to correctly track the target.
The highest priority at present is seeker TRK. If the seeker TRK the chaff, the attack will generally fail and the DL will be useless. However, if the seeker does not watch the chaff and exits the TRK due to the enemy aircraft’s notch, the data link is very effective.
Curiously, if notch is executed at a longer range, even if the chaff is correctly launched, it will cause the missile to switch to datalink guidance. This does not render the missile inoperable. This is probably because the current seeker has such poor anti-clutter capabilities that it cannot even lock on a low closing rate chaff at a distance of 5 km.
Is there any test available for this as it seems, inconsistent? In that, once a missile starts using TRK, it rarely, if ever, relies on DL after losing lock and instead only IOG.
I’ve looked at a couple of my replays and even hard locking the target doesn’t give the missile DL and instead it’s just IOG after losing TRK. For reference, this is with the AAM-4.
In this one example, I was firing at an MQ-1 drone and had this happen. After the TRK, it just never used DL and only IOG.
@k_stepanovich something that’s been bugging me for a bit but can’t quite find info about; shouldn’t radar missiles, particularly fox 3 radar missiles with their onboard radars have some limited terrain avoidance capabilities? The radar itself is able to determine terrain/clutter for the most part, and radars are commonly used to determine altitude. Couple that with the calculated intercept point and a radar missile should be able to avoid slamming into the ground by mistake in the event the calculated intercept point intersects with the ground no?
I’d assume it would work something like guiding along direct LOS if calculated intercept point intersects with the ground, and returning to normal lead once the intercept point is once again calculated to not intersect with the ground. Any knowledge of such systems? It seems logical and easy to code, but I can’t find any info yet on if its a realistic feature of missiles irl.
Picture for rough visualization:
Number of the capabilities missiles should have from the player’s point of view is only limited by the player fantasy. Common sense gives answer “no” about terrain avoidance, NCTR and others like this.
In the game for fighters with multi-target attack capabilities (right now these are fighters with ARH missiles with datalink) missiles no more receive target position via datalink after target track lose, even if the target track is re-established. So there is no way to switch from “IOG+DL” to “IOG” and than back to “IOG+DL”.
This works in this way because there is ambiguity: multiple missiles in flight, target of some of them is lost by the radar (no datalink support, they switched to IOG), new target is acquired in TWS or STT mode - which missiles should be connected to this new target?
For example:
F-14 launched two AIM-54 on two targets at range of 70 km in TWS mode - both missiles are in “IOG+DL” mode. 10 secs later new enemy suddenly appeared on a distance of 10 km in the front. Player locked this new enemy on and launched AIM-7F in STT mode. Which behavior of these two AIM-54 is expected? Should they be connected to this new target by datalink or should they continue their two to these far targets in “IOG” mode?
The only way to make it work in the way players want - to provide manual re-targeting (re-connecting missile datalink to another target tracked by the radar) in flight for each launched missile. Which looks like too complex and not easy to use.
6 Likes
They should continue to the far targets in IOG mode since they are going for their assigned targets. Clustered target assignment capability.
Currently it seems that missiles only continue manuevering in IOG for a few seconds after target track has been lost. Is this considered a bug? For instance, launching at a target in front of you during a merge, the missile does not do a 180 degree manuever in IOG to follow the target.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/fVxq4GpLjbPO
Terrain avoidance is already used in some missiles such as cruise missiles rather commonly, not sure how its a farfetched idea a radar missile would have said ability as well
it is far fetched. cruise missiles have dedicated radar altimeters. the radar on an air to air missile would be looking somewhere completely different. in your example image, the seeker would be looking at the target and not the ground.
It has always surprised me that they did not simply install an IR and RF seeker in the same missile. They even had prototypes of such a thing but made it hilariously ugly. They could literally make two cones on the front if they really wanted to - it would not be the most aerodynamic solution but I’d imagine that the pK would be insane.
Fair enough, i did some more digging into it, I had mistakenly assumed the main radar of an aircraft could/was used for radar altitude as well, and as such theoretically the radar seeker could do so as well in theory, but aircrafts also have dedicated radar altimeters it seems.
Also, the drawing was a poor representation, but the general thought was “if the radar seeker starts to pickup a significant amount of clutter in its sidelobes, with the estimated intercept point being in said clutter, a more LOS intercept path would be attempted” Hence the “limited terrain avoidance capability” and not outright “radar altitude”
m scan and pesa radars can only do one thing at a time so you have to choose…
some systems do track or at least know about the ground. an example of this would be the mim-104 patriot. it knows where the ground is or tracked it before to not waste precious radar power on those areas but also to avoid having the interceptor follow or lead a target into the ground. however it can only do this because it tracks where the interceptor is…
SM-2 has received an IR seeker on the block IIIB but it is supposedly dropped on the IIIC
i guess they decided that it is not necessary
the IR seeker on the sm-2 was installed for BMD
i’d say the US is very confident in the radar seeker tech