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.
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.
5 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.
You launched at target with a questionable lock to begin with, one that had already dropped… and you did so at such a long range that (imo) a sudden maneuver from target could easily throw the missile off. He was also at low altitude… not high altitude as stated. In fact… I challenge you to lock and fire someone with a double red circle on your HUD above 10,000m and try to get it to miss without actively confusing it with chaff or simply hitting a notch.
Also, kind of getting off topic. I posted the report here because there isn’t an AIM-7 thread and because it’s somewhat relevant. I think the technical term for upgraded guidance that includes loft profiles for the US might contain terminology such as “trajectory shaping”.
- The first target went into a notch, thats why I locked someone else.
- The second target, the one that I fired a Sparrow at stayed hot as indicated by the radar
- He was at 15k, that’s not “low”
- I would be more than happy to demonstrate a 40 mile shot with the R27ER, happens every 2-3 games
I have literally zero desire to discuss/debate anything with you. There are countless pages both on here and on the old forum of you being incapable of considering anyone else’s opinion.
4 Likes
This guy is at 15k feet? No. No, he most certainly is not.
Also, your missiles tracked just fine until you lost the lock by diving so low that the target ended up ASL behind a mountain providing physical obscurity.
You came to my thread to complain about the missile (which is not special by any means as compared to any other missile in the game). You came in here and showed two good examples of how not to perform BVR with the Sparrow. They are all going to lose lock in either of these scenarios. An exception can be made that an R-27R/ER can be salvaged easier due to the INS/Datalink and additional break lock time.
Ok man, whatever you say
If the missile has better time to hit gain, longer range shots will dive into the dirt far less often when target begins to maneuver. Further, if by some miracle it is provided lofting based on the evidence provided… the missile will certainly be more salvageable than it currently is should you have to rapidly re-lock a target.
I agree with you on this. Regardless of if it was a questionable lock (which it most certainly was) It does not matter.
Aim7Ms digital computer and autopilot enables the AIM-7M to fly optimized trajectories, with target illumination necessary only for mid-course and terminal guidance.
A sudden maneuver from a target miles away is not going throw the missile off and scramble its tracking or whatever. The Aim7M is not going to immediately pull up because the target did so miles away. Why would the 7M do that? It’s not even a logical calculation.
The main issue here is that we are playing with unmodelled Sparrows. GJ can care less about western missiles. Every top western missile is a copy paste of the previous variant straight up. I just highlighted a capability of the Aim7M not modelled. If GJ can care less about modelling western missiles. Then naturally they will care less about issues in gameplay and function.
As for the R27ERs. They do behave like that as well. Just not nearly as much, and when it does happen, it does not really ever matter because ERs have the magical ability to go Mach 5 and immediately pitch back up at 90 ° toward whatever target you decide to relock and still immediately connect with no loss of energy or stability. Even the regular R27 can immediately swing back almost completely in reverse and run targets down I relock after they gave that insane maneuverability buff.
I want to say it has happened with the RDY. But I cannot really say I remember any occasion.
3 Likes
Idk if it’s coincidental but I quite literally just did a report on improving the AIM-7Ms guidance which sparked this discussion. Previously it was thought it followed similar guidance laws to the AIM-7F and just swapped for a monopulse seeker.
1 Like
I don’t know… Let me know when they improve the missile to historical performance. Its already 6 months overdue and competitively DOA.
They had the perfect competitor to the R27ER. the M offered similar capability without the need of a passive IRST lock.
Previously thought? A 5 min google search can literally tell you what you need to know about it and the other western missiles GJ has neglected. Thats an excuse
No, at this point this is nothing more but an apparent disregard to any weapon system that will undermine the Union/Federation.
Genuinely asking (anyone), Why does every western missile need 20 active bug reports and half a year and counting for GJ to actually model their missiles? At the same time, the second a soviet platform suffers in the slightest they add a brand-new missile in the middle of a patch and let it slaughter it’s competition?
GJ spent over 3 months carefully crafting the R73. Lol these dudes had a meeting on implementing it on the Su25 for the summer event that would serve as the catalyst of the SMTs release. A specially crafted platform (1st Federation fighter in WT history) that will receive the best IR missiles for WVR and BVR, the best radar missile along with an (already modelled) improved radar to further its lethality.
But the F16C is going to receive a copy paste Aim7F, a copy paste Aim9L AND a copy paste MLU radar? What is the point of doing a report if platforms like the ADF still have not received the capability that is due to them? Or the F14?
Why wouldn’t the AMRAAM be completely gutted of historical performance? GJ has undeniable history of leaving every top tier missile of American decent unfinished. Are they going to tell you “it was previously thought.” too? After all your hard work, research & countless technical debates? It appears so, yes.
Its GJ’s standard operating procedure to date.
6 Likes
Do you have any examples of how American equipment has come to the game in an intentionally nerfed state? iirc the AIM-9L, AIM-7F/M came to the game overperforming and in the case of the AIM-7F… yes it’s a copy paste of the AIM-7M in the sense that it’s severely overperforming. All SARH missiles that are not monopulse of some sort overperform and to a degree some monopulse seekers underperform so in that regard it’s unilaterally affecting all missiles. It was a design decision on Gaijins part to simplify the radar missile seekers. This isn’t some intentional nerf to American or Western stuff.
In the case of Russian stuff, they have far more access to documentation and it’s more legible to them. It’s really simply just that, and even then we have to put in several reports to fix Russian equipment. The SMT is coming to the game with the wrong radar if you’re gonna pretend the dev server is the be all - end all final iteration of how something might show up on live. The F-16C could be fixed by then. If it’s not, were there reports on the particular issue?
If I recall, it seems to me that Russian stuff has remained handicapped as far as aircraft go on implementation with some exceptions and on the other side of the fence, NATO ground vehicles come nerfed in some way for balance. This has been the only discernible trend I’ve been able to identify and in this case Gaijin admits it is a balancing decision at least.
I’d love to do a Aim-7F/M range test at 12,000 meters if anyone’s willing.
Also did you claim something came into War Thunder intentionally nerfed or did @MiG_23M misremember a statement from elsewhere possibly by another user?
Sir, you’re smarter than to believe such fictions.
Also AIM-9Ms are potentially the best missile.
1 Like
What are you using to compare the range against? What kind of launch parameters?
I don’t understand your following question.
I don’t believe the AIM-9M to be the best missile.