Wouldn’t the AIM-95 only be a solution for the F-14? That wouldn’t solve the issues for F-16s and F-15s
This would be accurate yes, this is fine, because nato would have better radar missiles(ER would be featured)
The F-15 also participated in the AIM/ACEVAL tests so it is likely that it carried the AIM-82 / -95 surrogates so could effectively be handwaved in a sense or the AIM-82 modeled though very little was developed before cancelation.
and the F-16 was investigated for fitting various HMS configurations and one of the requirements was that it was AIM-95 certified, so again could be leveraged as there is evidence that it was looked at, the same way the Yak-141 has IRST and various other features.
5 Likes
As much as I want the AIM-95 I’m keeping my expectations low. I suspect we will only see dissimilar / asymmetrical balancing methods here on out.
The issue here is the R-27ER breaks everything, there is no way to build an advantage in BVR with such a large disparity in the TTK delta at WT combat ranges, and I don’t doubt that the R-77 is on its way as well which when combined with the R-73 leaves the US entirely out in the cold.
so with no ordnance advantage likely to materialize the only option is advanced airframes and I doubt that the F-22 or F-15E are turning up this patch, so the US is very much in a bit of a bind since the next step up in escalation is a big jump.
4 Likes
Crying Britain main
Don’t forget about us :(
1 Like
I mean most western nations are in the same boat.
2 Likes
ASRAAM when )))
Probably not as far as you think with IRCM removed.
Tornado Gr4 is definetly going to need it, Because its either 9Ls or ASRAAM and there is no way we’re going to have Brimstone at a 9L appropriate BR.
1 Like
AIM-95 would be an interesting addition on an event vehicle.
2 Likes
Good luck doing that with gaijins wishy washy implementation of radar missiles making them fail to hit targets half the time, either because multipath is MUCH to abusable in a game with player/missile markers and 3rd person view allowing you to comfortably fly with your planes engines ingesting grass, or because theyve somehow made radar missiles more sensitive to other missiles than to aircraft, causing them to be pulled off target all the time.
Also doesnt help that the current god of air battles, the MiG-29, is on the Russian side
The other issue with the R-27ER is that it just so happens to ideally fit in WT mechanics, and the best adversary to the MiG-29 currently, the F-14B, has a trash 9km ACM mode, and a RIO that isnt doing his job of locking targets at further ranges than 9km.
The WT max head-on spotting of enemy planes of ~10km happens to also be the range within you are almost garanteed to die to an ER shot if you havent already started evading, and that range can drop due to altitude, time of day, etc…
Honestly, I think 2 good ways they could also hamper the R-27ER would be by giving NATO jets their proper RWR indicators to allow people to know ehat jet exactly is locking them, and allowing 2 seater jets, such as the Tornado, F-14 and F-4 variants, to have an unlimited range HMD PD-like (ie mouse designated) radar lock to simulate the RIO/WSO doing his job instead of being dead weight and making the plane a bigger target.
Both of these combined would allow for earlier threat identification in BVR situation and much quicker and more efficient target locking, because atm, particularly with the garbage RWR sensitivity, its impossible to tell whats actually a threat and whats just a stupid AI SPAA driving around locking you from halfway across the world, and in the case of the F-14’s it can be extremely difficult locking a target in the critical 10-15km range.
3 Likes
What does it being Russian mean? How does that help / not help?
How does the R-27ER “ideally fit in WT mechanics” aside from being the best SARH missile in history?
I don’t understand the ranting about RIO/WSO (twin seaters)… the F-14 arguably has some of the best flight performance in-game and some of the best armament. The AIM-9L is still one of the most viable missiles at top tier and it has an ungodly amount of ordinance compared to everything else. Pick your targets or force the MiG-29 to waste his missiles and you’re set.
Comically, I’ve even been just shooting the R-27ER’s down in head-ons using a single AIM-9L. It’s hilarious.
1 Like
This is solely due to the fact that by the time the -27ER(1988~1990) came about after the kinematics of the Boost-Sustain motor sparrows(1975) was a known quantity. It would be like deciding to make an air launched variant of the RIM-162 ESSM (a similar thing happened with the RIM-66, the AIM-97 Seekbat ).
And due to the generally shorter range engagements of WT, lack of long range spotting support and assorted issues with the AWG-9, ALR-23 / AXX-1 and AIM-54 there really isn’t a good way outside of STT to ensure that a Phoenix has a slight chance to makes it to a target, which of course permits a response due to setting of the RWR. so the advantages that the AIM-54 might have over the -27ER are limited significantly.
IRL the RIO would handle practically everything outside of flying the plane allowing the pilot to focus on immediate issues, and it’s sort of valid since also needing to manage the Radar is one more thing to focus on, while flying and maintaining SA considering a number of features (e.g. BST / Flood mode) are missing that are designed for the explicit purpose of allowing for an immediate and rapid response to a changing situation and the counterpart systems (VTAS II; AN/AVG-8A) aren’t implemented.
Exerpt from the April 4th, 1977 edition of aviation week
The Block 90 F-14As taking part in the test required extensive hardware and software changes. They include:
- Maneuvering slats. Slat extension/retraction occurs concurrently with selection of maneuvering flaps.
- Central air data computer with high angles of attack, the flight stick utilizes rudder instead of differential stabilizer for roll control.
- Second UHF radio, replacing the ARC-51 with the ARC-150 (V)5 solid-state radio for a 20-w. output increase.
- Lower pylon Sidewinder adapter. Stations 1B and 8B can carry the AIM-9L missile.
The Honeywell visual target acquisition system – a dual cockpit system – has been installed by Hughes. Both the pilot and flight officer are able to slave the missile seekers off-boresight with the visual target acquisition system. All seekers slave to either crewmember’s line of sight. The pilot is dominant if simultaneous slaving occurs in both cockpits.
Each patch going forward is going to reduce its edge, and the F-14B trades off with the F-14A in the Intercept / dogfight roles, they already struggles due to artificial balance constraints anyway, and in a 1v1 existing aircraft can already take advantage of its relative weakness if flown well. So it isn’t something that can be fallen back on and relied upon to consistently win engagements.
and that doesn’t even go into worse off airframes like the Tornado that multiple other nations rely on at this point.
Practically everything 11.7 and up can expect to be armed with the AIM-9L / AIM-7F or better at this point so its nothing special, which only really brings attention to issues with AIM-54 and AWG-9. So their effective employment will heavily rely on the pilot to turn the situation to their advantage.
This doesn’t even encompass the upcoming new tranche of high performance missiles (Python 3, R-73, AAM-3, Magic II, etc.) that are going to set the new standard for performance of which the AIM-9L / AIM-9M do not meet sufficiently to even be considered counterparts to which furthers performance issues.
That is implemented at the moment, against most opponents its going to have an extra pair of Sidewinders, it doesn’t actually increase relevant missile loadings above what was previously able to be carried (The F-4J can also carry 6x SARH or 4 x SARH + 4 x AIM-9).
The F-14 doesn’t have the acceleration to dictate an engagement vs existing airframes and will have even less of an ability to do so going forward with aircraft like the F-15, F/A-18 and Su-27 showing up. So if someone were to focus you down, all you can do is respond to said challenge or try and run and make the situation worse.
Its up to them to actually launch them at a time of their choosing, and they would have little reason to launch early as with the kinematic advantage they can still be launched significantly afterwards and still retain the TTK delta, and so why wouldn’t they wait until the range closes further to increase the SSPk anyway.
4 Likes
Also simply doesnt help that the AIM-54C is missing its 25G pull, smokeless motor and an actual upgraded seeker…
3 Likes
I’m wondering if the AIM-9B-2,3 widely used and if it made the missile faster?
Also as I was reading through the document it says the AIM-9B can be uncaged before launch. Is this aircraft dependent?
2 Likes
maybe they meant AIM-9E?
Probably not since they mention the correct gimbal limits for the 9B.
There’s also a separate document for the 9E series.
2 Likes