I don’t see it being worse than how seekers work ingame, I don’t think long fuze should be implemented either, it wouldnt be a big issue irl but in-game with desync? I’ve had enemy magics clip through me many times I’d rather that not be extended to 10km
so realism for one but not the other?
1 Like
No, it’s about prevent trash gameplay, if gaijin can insure the missile deals impact damage correctly then I’d have no issues with it, but I’m skeptical. Do you want more jank?
magic 2 got changed from 0.5 to 1.8 seconds because source for fuse delay was found…
so was all the sidewinders, they all used to be 0.5 seconds (default) then british docs were used to report it to be 1.8 seconds.
the only missiles from back in the day that still retain their old 0.5 second proxy delay are the r60 series, and by extension the r-73 series
and that delay for the r60 series is correct, as it is stablized (doesn’t maneuver) for 0.35 seconds (modeled in game) and then arms after 100m is traveled (around 0.5 seconds) (right page).
r60 manual
cover (translated)
Spoiler
i would say the aam4 proxy doesn’t need to be fixed until it actually is modeled correctly, kinda like how the magic 2/1 proxy wasn’t fixed until it got its insane off bore ability.
although this is kinda different because the proxy of 4 - 6 seconds would make it literally useless from 0-5/10km depending on speed and altitude, while magic 2 is still super capable off bore even with 1.8 second delay
1 Like
The main issue with the seeker is it’s poor ability to track moving targets. According to one report I read it would fail to track a target turning at 9Gs, which relates to a angular rejection threshold of around 22.5 degrees per second, versus the current 30 in game for all ARHs. I also personally believe that the track rate should be much lower then is currently in game, as the patent for its guidence logic uses 10 degrees per second as the example max rate. Now it is true that this is only a example value and not an exact one, however every other value used for the example/simulation is within a relatively close margin of the actual performance values, so…
This is getting kinda off topic though, so F-2A need AAM4B? here’s another place where I am more properly talking about AAM-4 modeling for that part of the discussion to go to.
1 Like
where still on AIM-9M-4 we should recceive the 7 or 10
that kind of seeker limitation im fairly sure exist for a quite a few older missiles(im not sure fox 3s but i think this might be true for some fox 1s as well).
its kind of surprising we havent got the 35gs for the aim9 at least.
Yeah but the AAM-4 is a very modern missile. Even newer then the AMRAAM atleast.
The An-2 is more modern than the B-45, but which is more advanced?
It is also very advanced, uses galium FETs instead of a traveling wave tube of an amraam or a klystron like an R-77. Its datalink was superior to anything else of the time. Its guidence logic was extremely impressive at minimizing energy losses. And directional warheads weren’t and still arent common for missiles of its type and size.
If anything im almost a bit confused why it struggled so much with its seeker tracking targets, when the rest of the missile was so advanced. Its not even like it was just a outright bad seeker, it still had an extremely strong output and was excelent from an eccm standpoint.
What’s the point of all that if it has a hard time doing it’s actual job
1 Like
wait did normal aam-4 had 2 way datalink or was that a thing only for aam-4b
Both only had 1 way i think but its data processing with things like doppler returns from the host radar and it’s inertial reference system made it behave a lot more like a 2 way system.
surprised aam-4b doesnt have 2 way datalink tbh.
if it was properly implemented in game, would it have unlock relock ability/switching of target after lock on like 2 way datalink systems can
Is there a way to stop this from interfering with other missiles that have already been fired for in game purposes?
true… i think thats why it only works for SARH missiles currently. because aim-54/aim-120 should be able to switch targets before going into terminal homing mode when still using remote inertial guidance. but with fox 3s thats complicated
Tbf i’m not entirely 100% certain it’s 1 way. While the unit on the missile is generally marked as a receiver antenna, the J/ARG-1 is listed as a tranceiver. The main reason im assuming its 1 way is the guidence logic doesnt contain a feedback loop to the plane, although as i’ve said it takes care of most the benefits that would provide internally anyways through other reference algorithms.
This I am uncertain of, in theory it should be able to, and I do feel like i have read something stating as such, but I do not remember such thing being mentioned in it’s guidence logic.
1 Like