From what i understand , the C7 initial upgrade was new software to improve the resolution and interference immunity of the WGSN.
Later from lot27+ the use of a more modern oand compact element base (VCAS?) made it possible to increase the length of the engine bay and so more propelant = more range (120km vs 105km Max range)
The NAMMO remplacement motor was only a motor that could be use in cold temperature (ie Norway) because the initial one wasn’t working well for higth altitude cold air shot. I don’t think the motor was better in way than the atk one in performance.
NAMMO motor seems to have been offered at some point but only to those with VCAS modification which is why I presume it has higher performance similar to the lot27+ motors made by Orbital ATK but could be wrong. I also see no reason NAMMO couldn’t have helped produce both motors as well.
This has been a very interesting thread to read
2 Likes
It is there and I did testing of it with a friend immediately after release, it works on F-14A Early at least with at least 2 missiles.
That is not giving multiple guidance, that was missiles own INS , now due to loft code , it is more inaccurate and needs the guidance by the radar .
This is the data of the aircraft of both sides in the China-Thailand military exercise. The Aim-120 has a range of 80km, but the R-77 has a range of 50 km？
The picture says the farthest launch distance, I don’t know if this is equivalent to the maximum range.
I did the test in following setup.
F-14 on 5000m at Mach 1 against two side by side targets at 70km.
I fire two Aim-54 in quick succession, then two targets turn away from each other by 30 degrees, both Aim-54 followed.
Then, after two seconds, both targets turn towards each other for 60 degrees, both Aim-54 followed, RWR was still not triggered.
Then I turn off TWS and both targets turns away from each other by 60 degrees, both missiles did not follow.
This test can be replicated easily if you have friends and see for yourself. However, you have to act fast and complete the test before Aim-54 goes pitbull.
Also, it is less accurate due to reduced TWS scan rate on F-14’s radar, not loft.
2 Likes
IIRC, launch distance in China usually means the distance at the moment of launch when flying at Mach 1 on 10,000m going head on. But that may not always be the case (and I could have remembered it wrong).
It says that the 120 can work with the F-14. What variant of the F-14 can mount the 120 and what variant of the 120 can it mount?
1 Like
F-14A was tested with it, however by the time the F-14D retired all it required was software and the correct pylons to fire the AIM-120 iirc. Political discourse prevented the funds from being sent to equip the navies F-14D’s with AMRAAMs as they wanted to simply retire the F-14 at that point.
1 Like
All F-14D’s were wired for the AMRAAM, but the developmental work for the adapters was not completed. the AIM-120 is listed in the 1985 SAC for the F-14D on the last page. There are also photos of them being flight tested on a number of airframes.
6 Likes
Seems AIM-7M should have better time to hit gains and potentially even a modest lofting trajectory.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/qXZgF5fLYEAe
All of that is great but imo they should first focus on the missiles actually going where you aimed them. Literally no other missile behaves like the sparrows
The code isn’t special to the AIM-7. All other missiles share the same mechanics.
Further, your choice of how / when to launch the missile has quite a lot to do with why it was performing so poorly.
Well it might not be exclusive to the Sparrows but I have never, not once, seen it affect the R-27s or the 530s. And for the love of god dont pull that “how/when” bull****. Everyone has seen sparrows go for the ground regardless of altitude and attitude. You can be up at 30k with a single hot target on your radar and there is still a 50/50 chance the sparrow is going to have a seizure and just not track anything
4 Likes
must not use them much then because it happens to both of those too, though its not because the missile but rather the radar. AIM-7s on the F-14 are much more reliable in going for a locked target than the F-16 for example. I suspect this is possible because due to the Mprf nature of the APG-66 its much more affected by sidelobes than high prf radars like the RDI and AWG-9.
That might be the case, I can’t prove a negative but I do have 200 games in the 29 and 115 in the M2K and I have never seen a missile just randomly decide to not track anything. I have seen missiles go for a different target (that also happens a lot more often with the Sparrows, regardless of the launch platform, be it a 14,16 or 4J), I have seen them fly in a straight line and explode when they lose lock, but never just refuse to track while looping around
it happens a lot with super 530s, much more than sparrows for me atleast, probably because they have a very short max break lock time, R-27s it will never happen thanks to their datalink and INS either way this is all anecdotal and everyone’s experiences are different but I can say objectively theres nothing in the code for the missiles that makes them do this as late SARHs practically all share the same seeker code.