If multipathing is fixed you’d be unable to avoid it for the most part bar proper notching, above the MAR, and using terrain features or masking.
Additionally, the AIM-54C shouldn’t really have a lot more range than it currently does… it should just have better avionics and a reduced smoke motor.
Have they done any tweaking to its flight behavior?
Not that I am aware. They improved the AoA which made it increase to 17G’s sooner and hold that for longer but nothing in regards to range. Currently AIM-54A matches a specific long range test scenario that interestingly - may cause slight overperformance at very low altitudes… but we aren’t certain.
I wish they would fix multi pathing so bad. I really really wanna see people get smacked by my missiles from 40+km away because they have no clue how to notch
It won’t be so bad considering the efficiency spike will either cause them to be removed, shifted to a higher BR, its competitors to decrease in BR, or propagate more performant ordnance to lower BRs to compensate.
I would agree that there is obviously little that could otherwise be done upon entry into the NEZ, by design.
The AIM-54 is unusable right now. You can fire it and it just goes straight even with a lock. Maybe if they fix it the tomcats will have an advantage again
I noticed this, not sure if a report has been made.
It seems no report has been made. The most recent AIM-54 bug report was ~22 days ago, and it was a change in top speed that was denied.
Why do you need a kab-500L? No I don’t mind, it’s just that it’s a useless armament on the Su-39 within the game considering it will cost the same in points as the Kh-25ML which are just better
Having larger options are just generally better and historical loadouts which can be added in-game should be.
I wouldn’t mind a KAB-500L, I like having the options, even if one is better than the other.
It’s not the missile (probably), its the uber simplistic way the radar is modeled. Once you lose track of the target, even for a sec, thats it. The missile is trashed and will never reacquire unless the target is cooperative enough to fly within the INS prediction when the seeker goes active. That by itself wouldn’t be inaccurate as this is how the phoenix operated IRL HOWERVER switching TWS target also counts as losing the previous target.
That is a stance I agree with. Even totally useless weapon systems. Should be added. Id kill for Sea Eagles for the Tornado (and several other aircraft) . Even though they’d basically only be usable in ASB.
Idk. Missile or radar is bugged and this makes the Phoenix unusable
hey Ralin how is the quest for the Kinzhal/Khod holy grail going? I was doing some searches myself last night and noticed you in that thread on secretprojects from last year haha. But also, laser bombs/tv bombs are indeed a little cheaper than laser atgms to spawn in - and can make a decent option if u make presets with just a couple of them so it doesnt bump the points up to full cost(since atgm’s have the same price regardless of number taken but bombs it does change). And that way it would give a cheap option during night battles where pure optical TV stuff doesn’t work
Full cost:
Cheap:
The thing is is it is kinda realistic. Well, kinda.
You have your “regular” seeker (known as Conical) on the missile. The sort of seeker you see on AIM-7C/E, on early AIM-7s and just generally early SARH missiles.
My understand is that around the mid 1960s/early 1970s engineers went “hey, you know how our missiles keep dumping themselves into the ground and missing everytime we shoot at a low altitude target? How about we make a new seeker to fix that?” and so you get Monopulse and then Inverse Monopulse, where the long and short is you’d tune your missile and guidance radar to look for/emit very specific frequencies, which a) means it doesn’t instantly get confused when ground clutter crops up (Pulse Doppler/MTI Radars kick in here) and that it’s a whole lot harder to jam.
In game Monopulse is known to be on R-23/24 and R-27
and Inv. Monopulse can be found on Skyflash (all), AIM-7M, Aspide.
The long and short is that Monopulse reduces the minimum altitude at which you can hit aircraft. Before introduction flying about 1000ft above ground level would defeat a SARH, but with Monopulse you’d be able to hit aircraft 300ft AGL, and with Inverse Monopulse the British Skyflash had successful hits as low as 75m (lower allegedly, but that’s what I could find from first glance. I’ll look later)
TL:DR:
The game doesn’t implement how seekers work, which means multipathing is actually less effective than it should be.
It was transitioned to due to the increasing prevalence of effective defensive electronic jamming since it was relatively simple to jam (though it is resistant to most of the basic types e.g. Noise, Barrage, and pulsed) due to the cyclical nature of the scan, long dwell time of the seeker and relatively large sidelobes.
and in comparison to the alternate Rosette scan method it would likely have been significantly cheaper and has a reduced moving part count and requirements on processing for interpreting returns would have made it simpler to implement at the time(all Rosette scan does is add a second cyclic rotation which frustrates existing conical scan jamming signals).
There isn’t really a massive technical difference between conical scan and either monopulse methods; in being that instead of nutating the FoV of the seeker and taking the average strength of the signal over time(e.g. a rotation of the seeker) as the pointing error,
Monopulse methods compare the returns of multiple receivers that have overlapping gain patterns and simultaneously compares the strengths on their axial partners to determine error on a given axis, which is combined to derive pointing error.
With the AIM-7E at least the problem wasn’t said to be the seeker but the active radar proximity fuse getting ground interference below 5000ft (~1.5km), in a look down scenario, even though as noted it was cleared to attack surface targets, which are obviously near 0m AGL so its not really a seeker issue as such, though it is a contributing factor.
During the fox 3 test in march multipathing was overperforming. Regarding fox1s, well it probably depends on the exact model, but i’d say there are very roughly performing as they should, + or - some small difference here and there
Negative. I’ve gathered about 12-15 indirect sources that claim it existed, but nowhere do they cite the characteristics of the system.
I hadn’t noticed that, then there’s a point. Anyway report accepted, I guess it will show up one day
Oh how frustrating - i know i was getting annoyed and i’ve only spent a couple days on it lol. What specifications are still needed? Or do you just need a second source stating similar characteristics on detection capably as in your khinzal report. Since, like your reasoning within khod report, the view limit information is not needed for warthunder as currently they are based on the integrated Shkval optical system - but if they wanted to they could just model the limits of mercury pods since they share a near identical container.
