Yeah as far I I know those were completely unguided ballistic tests or just programmed trajectories
But we do know it’s lofting profile at ~Max range from other sources
Do we? Afaik, we know the max alt achieved by the missile launched considering launch parameters and target parameters, that doesn’t actually tell us what the loft profile is though.
Whats crazy about this thread is that you will never see the Russian Scab Rocketeers in a thread about Russian Missiles post this much misinformation or BS they make up. Look at all the information we have to post in this thread about the Phoenix to combat the lame Russian players who want to make sure NATO equipment remains broken or dead on arrival.
Where is the R-27ER post about its overperformance? Remember when the Aim7 was supposedly overperforming and the scabs rushed to the Aim-7 post to make sure it was nerfed? Now it underperforms by a large margin. The R-27ER meanwhile is the most free kill in WT.
Where is the R-27Er post Mig-29m? Where are your posts about it overperforming? Oh wait…you dont do that to Russian tech/vehicles…
R-27ER is performing according to all current data. As is the AIM-7F. We’ve bug reported the AIM-54 as it’s currently underperforming.
I don’t know where you got the notion that anything you said was true, but the best course of action is to just bug report it yourself if you’ve got some valid source and testing to prove it.
im pretty sure all the aim7s in the game except for the aim7m are overperforming but this is due to gajin wanting there seeker heads to be all of the same type as if they changed the seeker it would nerf all those missiles
Well, if they did model it correctly we’d see a simultaneous buff and nerf to radar missiles seekers in a variety of areas, but more noticeably the Russian seekers would outperform the American ones at low altitude engagements (99% of the engagements in-game right now)… So the realism they’re crying for is actually detrimental to them.
Sparrow F and M are underperforming in the seeker department aswell. (M having same seeker range as F). The ability of guiding on the main HPRF waveform instead of a secondary CW. This means longer seeker range(F and M, and M>F range), and M using the FM HPRF thus knowing range and doppler to form a range-doppler map(i think F does know range aswell) and especially no RWR warning (applicable for F16C/F14s(it can do CW and HPRF), F15/F18).
I really want to see the crying when only 1 country can launch a missile without giving a warning when everybody else does…
1 Like
wouldnt a frequency change occur? I cant speak much on missiles guided by high prf doppler but for pulse missiles like the R530, IRL theyd still give a launch warning because the RWR would recognize a sudden frequency change which occurs when the missile is fired
Or is there actual documentation saying “yeah RWRs aint got a clue”
ill take balance over realism any day
No. Radars don’t change the carrier frequency to launch(only f15 and f18 change the PRF if they are in MPRF to HPRF). What other radars do is add a separate illuminator, for a CW signal. F16C has a PDI(hprf waveform). The 530F guided on the F1’s main radar signal if I’m not mistaken which is LPRF(“PULSE”) and the 530D on a CW. Which is why the M2000 has a CW illuminator
1 Like
Would we not know that we are locked though?
Would FOX-3s negate most of this anyway?
Just locked.
Same way Mig 29s negate F4Es, 9Ms negate 9Js, one is more modern and came later than another. This is from Mid 70s till Amraam came around in 91’. You are comparing tech with more than decade in difference since IOC.
Not what I’m getting at. If you’re guiding an AMRAAM in Yes there will be even less notice in the first place than if they model the SARH on CWI waveform as you said.
Especially against an opponent with R-27ER… But then we’re basically back to war thunder before RWR.
An aim-7 launch on hprf is going to give the target’s RWR:
-
Radar frequency data (ident)
-
Lock warning
-
Possibly some more
It only really lacks the CW lamp, you’d still know you’ve been hard locked
yeah
yep.
AIM7 F and M are the only ones that are able to guide in this waveform. R27R/ER depends on a separate CW illuminator. Thus a missile launch/guidance warning.
The R27 is also not really correctly modelled in terms of guidance. It should have sort of adaptive PN, which we know how they are derived and the Inertial navigation is also fantasy. Right at launch the seeker head is locked into the direction where the target will be when the R27 reaches X(normally 25km) distance from the target and switches from I.N, locks the target and continues in SAHR.
At the phase of acquisition, the target must be in a 12° cone and ± 150m/s in speed. This would causes problem. Say you fire at a plane left 30° offset with I.N. ~50-60km. The missile will normally lead to point of interception, with the antenna pointing where the target will be at 25km from the missile. In this case (for example any value) 15° to the left from the nose. IF the target changes course to 60° the the right while the R27 is still in I.N, the missile will lead to that new direction, the target will be now the the missile’s right! But the antenna is pointing 15° to the LEFT! Now either the missile is trashed or needs to make the antenna point the target, which may kill the missile cinematically. I think the latter happens. which is why there’s a 4-5x increase in the proportional navigation(this is the adaptive part) in the formula during acquisition. Now here, the last info the missile got was that target was at a certain radial from it. But it looks for signals in the antenna cone ± 150m/s. And the target may have maneuvered or be close to the beam.
A.-target’s maneuvered and speed is out of ±150m/s zone
B. -may lock to clutter(don’t think I remember seeing target size being a condition somewhere) or chaff.
You are making shit up out of thin air without knowing how the signals differ or what they do. Besides CW, the AIM7 guides on the FM’d HPRF waveform, which is the same signal some radars use to track. HPRF STT lock signal == homing signal. Older radar’s like the phantom F4E used LPRF for tracking, but the used a CW for missile guidance coming from an illuminator. This illuminator turned on exactly when the missile got launched, and an RWR seeing this signal can tell there’s something in that direction providing guidance for a missile.
You only get this
- Radar frequency data (ident)
- Lock warning
There’s not more.
2 Likes
This isn’t true. The R-27 series is guided with CWI, there is no separate illumination device on MiG-29.
It switches between two waveforms iirc… one for guidance and other for mid-course intermittently / not sure what the correct wording is.
Looked deeper tho and it seems N001/N019 doesn’t use a CW transmitter but uses r27 uses CW. Under SAHR CW(or guidance signal) is provided for 30ms and radar works the other 20ms. And on inertial nav, a full correction given by the radar is 7 cycles(30.72+20.48) of it thus every 358.2ms(0.35 seconds). 1 per missile. IF 2 missiles in the air, 1st takes 358ms and corrects, then 2nd receives commands for 358ms(during this time the 1st missiles gets nothing), it then corrects and 1st receives again and so on.
Quite interesting and different the soviet Method.
Yeah, haven’t analyzed deeply that(translating yandex everysinglething several times for multiple interpretations takes time). There’s a whole chapter for the guidance but its a headache to research when the document looks horrible compared to USAF and letters are so thick yandex struggles sometimes
What I need to look further is if
-A-the values are instruction for the missile to adjust itself(position/speed by each axis), by x quantity
-B-does it tell the missile by how how much the target moved/changed speed by axis. Here if you launch 2 missiles at a target going Mach 3.3(SR71), 971ms at 70kft, by the time the missiles gets a displacement update in one axis it may be beyond 300m thus no info.
-C-It is the update of the targets new velocity and position by axis at the time the missile goes SAHR.
1 Like
I recommend using Google lens to translate.
I don’t like how google translates russian stuff. Its wonky and gives unaccurate stuff in russian. Yandex image thing is pretty good, run a pic on yandex translator and the transation is comprehensible and higher quality than google. Might be as yandex is russian.
4 Likes
I find the opposite is true.