Side note: what do you mean by uncaged? Aren’t all missiles with a seeker gimbal modelled as uncaged? The R-13M pretty definitively has a 28 degree gimbal.
Or did you mean radar-slavable? In that case, no, there doesn’t seem to be evidence of this function.
It may be the wrong way of looking at it (and if it is I apologize)
but I was thinking of it as the difference between AIM-9D (caged?)
and AIM-9G (uncaged)
I’m not sure if caged is the “right” word, I just didn’t know how else to describe it
mig 23s get r3rs stock… damn, who know i could feel bad for russia.
Yes ok that makes sense. The R-13M is said to have a 28deg tracking FoV which to me sounds like it’s uncaged. Someone would have to look into the files but I don’t think caged missiles like the 9B or D can move their seeker at all.
The description of “having to face the entire aircraft towards the target” to me just sounds like it’s not radar slavable so you do need to aim the plane directly for lock, though then you can move the nose away, pulling your 3.7g turn, to lead before firing.
So in terms of seeker type:
9D- unslaved, caged
9E- unslaved, uncaged
9J- slaved, uncaged
I think the 13M is probably like the 9E. But I don’t have any more information than you do lol
I actually decided to test this.
Basically, what I was thinking was that missiles have a higher FoV post-launch. The way I tested it was by going into a custom match and trying to fire right at the edge of the seeker FoV (before it loses lock) in such a way that by the time the missile “activates” ~1.5 seconds later (starts turning) the aircraft launched at is outside of the “lock” FoV.
It seems like they do have a higher post-launch FoV; however this might be due to how they model “tracking,” which is (I think) by checking what is in front of the missile and assigning a “tracked” or “not tracked” value to it. But it depends on the game update speed, I think, which leads to some things like this:
Very obviously, the AIM-9B should not be able to track at this angle, but that’s besides the point.
I did this in the space of one custom match so it may not be the best method of testing, and I would rather someone go through the code, however I myself don’t know how to do that.
I also tried to take a few pictures from inside the missiles, facing towards the front, so that you can visualize the seeker FoV as displayed on the HUD when you are locking the missile.
Test: AIM-9D (4 Launches)
Launch 1
|
|
|
|
Launch 2
|
|
|
Launch 3
The only one that hit
|
|
|
|
|
Launch 4
|
|
Like I said before, it does seem like they have an “expanded” post-lock FoV. Whether that is due to game code or a real property of the missiles, I don’t know, but it exists. At least for some, notably the AIM-9B, it is very obvious it should not be able to do that as the seeker physically can’t point in those directions. But, for others, like the AIM-9D, it at least seems plausible that it does have an easier time tracking post-launch.
The reason I wanted to note this is that I think that the way the AIM-9D is modeled is the way the R-13M should be modeled. There was the one account of having to “point the aircraft toward the target,” but it made no mention of pulling the nose away and retaining the lock, at least not to my memory. Whereas on the AIM-9G, for example, we know that it was possible due to the addition of Sidewinder Expanded Acquisition Mode (SEAM), which I believe was repeated for the subsequent Sidewinders.
It very well might just be not radar slaveable, unlike the R-13M1 which is, but I don’t really know. Regardless, at least for me, I think the way to model it would be as an analogue to the AIM-9D, where it is a caged seeker but “expands” post-launch; either because it’s supposed to or because of how missiles are coded. That’s the reason why I made mention of keeping the R-13M1, since unlike the R-13M (assuming it’s modeled like this) it would be able to make an “off-nose” solution, far easier than doing the same with the R-13M.
1 Like
Practically all short range missiles was pretty universal like K-5, K-13 and K-60 families. Only medium/long range missiles was specialized in that age.
r13 is not in the game? its a great missile, its like aim-9j
The one in game is R-13M1, not R-13M
1 Like
I would like to see R-13M together with MiG-23S as best IR missiles for this plane. Practically MiG-23S would be equivalent to F-4C (sim BR 10.7). USSR need more fighters on tier VI/VII.
I’m not sure how true this is but it seems like it would be tracking FoV (ie. post-launch) and not seeking FoV (looking for target). At least from my test in the earlier post ignoring the funky code stuff that seemed to be what happened. The seeker can track outside of the seeking FoV but is still “caged” while on the rail.
At least that’s how it seemed to me.
Isn’t this, or at least something very similar in game on the MiG-27’s?
The M1 model is in game. This was also previously in game, but now removed. Its a good analogue for something inbetween the 9E or 9D. The M1 is 9J analogue.
I currently have a suggestion pending for the MiG-23MS. While it was originally equipped only with R-3S missiles, it was later modified to carry two R-13Ms. This upgrade actually allowed these “monkey models” to score a few confirmed kills. So if it’s ever added to the game, the R-13M would need to be reintroduced to reflect that capability accurately.
1 Like
From what I read so MiG-23MS was able carry 4x R-13M or 4x R-3R.
https://ruslet.webnode.cz/technika/ruska-technika/letecka-technika/a-i-mikojan-a-m-i-gurjevic/mig-23ms-flogger-e-/
The exact specifications of this jet are quite scarce, and available sources are often inconsistent. Even with my limited understanding of the language, I can already tell that some parts in that source might be inaccurate. It’s definitely challenging to find reliable information on the MiG-23MS. Still, thanks for the source, I’ll add it to the collection when the time comes.
If you’ve read Tom Cooper’s book on the MiG-23, you’ll know that during testing, the R-13M missile’s smoke caused engine issues when launched from the belly hardpoints. As a result, it was only approved for use on the underwing pylons.
I’m not sure if the R-13M1 uses the same propulsion system, but if it does, MiG-23s shouldn’t be allowed to launch it from the belly either. That said, for in-game purposes, allowing it to carry four is ultimately up to Gaijin.
There’s also debate over whether the MiG-23MS could use R-3Rs. Tom Cooper suggests it could, at least in tail-chase engagements. However, the radar was a downgrade compared to that of the MiG-21S, and as far as my research goes, there are no available photos of the MiG-23MS equipped with R-3Rs.
I’d argue that for balancing reason it should get only 2 R-13Ms and be at 9.3/9.7. Alongside the MiG-23BN.
1 Like
Yeah I know about smoke issue. But thats was problem with R-23 missiles. Thats why it got only two. Hovewer there was prototype (iz. 23-11/2) with 4x R-23.
Zhrnutie
Of course Ruslet have many inaccuraties but its great for basic overview. Ideally if we have some manuals or pictures. I think I had some with 4x R-3R.
I found some images but not with 4x R-3R. R-13M on upper pylons and R-3R on lower pylons. But not 100% sure if its MiG-23MS.
Zhrnutie
it’s not, you can tell by the nose. MiG-23MS was meant for export only. They came in their standardized desert camouflage even those that were left in the USSR. What you have on the pictures is a very early MiG-23.