Jump to content

MCLOS based guidance mechanics : ASM-N-7 "Bullpup" ( for the FJ-4B)


kev2go
 Share

Would you like to see gajin implement these new mechanics?  

38 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you like to see these new mechanics be implemented so the Fj4B ( and perhaps other future attack additions) can use this Guided Air to Ground Missile?

    • Yes
      36
    • No , I would like Germany to be the only nation with Guided Munitions
      2


f4b.jpg&key=e6d88ad9b1738d9edef2919f30fb

 

 

 

 

ASM-N-7  ( later re-designated "AGm12") bullpup is a Air to Ground MCLOS ( radio guided)  air to ground missile. It is controlled by a Pilot Via A toggle. Missile is tracked from behind via flare and pilot makes necessary adjustments with toggle until impact. This Version  officially entered Service in April of 1959.

 

Below is an articile with more in depth details such as developmental history and variations

 

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-12.html

 

FJ4B that is present in 1.79   Does not include ASM-N-7 Missile it was able to carry .  Given Both Manual and SAC are dated 1959 this is certainly the Initial ASM-N-7  bullpup Missile. This missile has an  explosive warhead of 113 kg ( Or 250 Lbs)

 

It could carry  a maximum of Five ASM-N-7 bullpup missiles  according to both the Supplemental Manual and Standard Aircraft characteristics sheet of FJ4B. The reason it cannot a maximum of 6 is because the Fj4B required a control pod on one of the pylons for guidance of the bullpup. ( as you can seen in the marked layout below)

 

 

 

 

VDvvzUG.png

 

 

 

8G3kCkT.png

 

 

 

From Manual ; Section detailing use

 

 

 

 

Spoiler

ehoi8fh.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ideas How to implement?

 

 

Since this is an MCLOS missile ( Manual Command Line of Sight) the Underlying Foundations can probably be applied from MCLOS based AGTMS from Ground forces to air Forces ( like Racketpanzer 2 or BMP1's Sagger) . Its just a matter of adjusting the warhead explosive power ( 250 lbs) adjusting the numbers to represent the max effective range, and assigning new keyboard controls, SInce WASD in air forces is used for flying, perhaps Numpad key could be used ( 8,4,6,2) 

 

As of this writing The Fj4B is the only plane right now that can use  such a Missile, however there are future potential addition to war thunder  that could benefit from such gameplay  guidance mechanics.   A4B+ skyhawk variations, as well as  other tech trees such as  German based  Fiat G91 R3 ( used a French based counterpart ; AS-20 Missile)

 


Visual Aids

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Primary Source Material

 

Fj4 & Fj4B supplemental Manual ( pg 36)

 

http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=3831

 

Fj4B Standard aircraft characterstics

 

http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=3829

 

 

 

Secondary Sources

 

 

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-12.html

 

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1959/1959 - 2927.PDF

 

http://bulletpicker.com/pdf/EOD Refresher USAF.pdf  ( Pg 314-317 Cutaway)

Edited by kev2go
  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Topic is conditionally approved and is awaiting full approval/review by a senior staff.

 

Open for discussion :salute:

 

 

Edited by Radom
  • Thanks 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 13/06/2018 at 17:16, MandolinMagi said:

The issue is the complete lack of any real info or manuals on the thing.

 

That said, here's a 1970 EOD Refresher manual with cutaways of the -C semi-armor-piercing version. Starts at page 5-52

 

i wouldn't consider this an issue that you  absolutely need a manual for the exact specific version of the Bullpup to be able to implement this. And to make it easier for people to find that section, thats Page # 314 - 317 that PDF

 

Just a general understanding of how such technology functions. followed by trying to find basic statistics of effective range, Warhead explosive power,, speed of the missile etc etc.  which is included in a section FJ4 manual.

 

Essentially think of this as a MCLOS based AGTM but  its fired from a plane.  I point out that  foundations/ underlying mechanics would be able to be applied to over other similar missiles that would be consider in purpose and technology  as counterparts.

Edited by kev2go
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, kev2go said:

 

i wouldn't consider this an issue that you  absolutely need a manual for the exact specific version of the Bullpup to be able to implement this. And to make it easier for people to find that section, thats Page # 314 - 317 that PDF

 

Just a general understanding of how such technology functions. followed by trying to find basic statistics of effective range, Warhead explosive power,, speed of the missile etc etc. 

 

Essentially think of this as a MCLOS based AGTM but  its fired from a plane.  I point out that  foundations/ underlying mechanics would be able to be applied to over other similar missiles that would be consider in purpose and technology  as counterparts.

I suppose, but you can't really model a missile off a couple pictures. And without the manual there's no solid info on anything, 

 

I mean, the -C model's 1,000lb SAP warhead turns out to be a 1000lb SAP bomb, so the actual explosive content is relatively small and we don't really know the penetration.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 14/06/2018 at 12:10, MandolinMagi said:

I suppose, but you can't really model a missile off a couple pictures. And without the manual there's no solid info on anything, 

 

I mean, the -C model's 1,000lb SAP warhead turns out to be a 1000lb SAP bomb, so the actual explosive content is relatively small and we don't really know the penetration.

 

 

well in this case  this specific bullpop version  for the fj4b would be the asmn7. later redesignated to  agm12a.this isn't the  b or c version. although agm12b would be close to the a version since the changes included were only to the rocket motor propellant.

 

Old Designation New Designation
TGAM-83 ATM-12
ASM-N-7
GAM-83
AGM-12A
ASM-N-7a
GAM-83A
AGM-12B
ASM-N-7b AGM-12C
GAM-83B AGM-12D

 

 

it is not anti armor piercing version but essentially general purpose explosive inside the warhead. it's warhead is only 250lbs of explosive.

 

later statistical  characteristics for improved versions of the bullpup or other foreign counterparts can be applied when respective planes that used them get added.

 

of course I myself and others can be on the lookout for documentation  but at the same time if gajin adds new features they are also expected to do their own research.

 

I don'

 want to turn this into what aboutism but I haven't seen a Fritz x manual available online.

 

even for study level simulation like dcs where there aren't manuals available for certain areas like electronic counter measures, IFF transponder/ programming , secure/coded communications  because of classified nature. a general understanding of how such electronics function has been enough for implementation.

Edited by kev2go
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 14/06/2018 at 12:23, kev2go said:

 

 

well in this case  this specific bullpop version  for the fj4b would be the asmn7. later redesignated to  agm12a.

 

this isn't the  b or c version. although agm12b would be close to the a version since the changes included were only to the rocket motor propellant.

 

it is not anti armor piercing version but essentially general purpose explosive inside the warhead. it's warhead is only 250lbs of explosive.

 

later statistical  characteristics for improved versions of the bullpup or other foreign counterparts can be applied when respective planes that used them get added.

 

of course I myself and others can be on the lookout for documentation  but at the same time if gajin adds new features they are also expected to do their own research.

 

I don'

 want to turn this into what aboutism but I haven't seen a Fritz x manual available online.

 

even for study level simulation like dcs where there aren't manuals available for certain areas like electronic counter measures, IFF transponder/ programming , secure/coded communications  because of classified nature. a general understanding of how such electronics function has been enough for implementation.

Gaijan do research? HA!

 

Sure they can add ASM-N-7, but there's zero actual solid data on it. There's hardly any on the C to make educated guesses from.

  • Confused 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, MandolinMagi said:

Gaijan do research? HA!

 

Sure they can add ASM-N-7, but there's zero actual solid data on it. There's hardly any on the C to make educated guesses from.

 

 

If you cant provide any  constructive arguments or any more data then i don't attack the Suggestion . And thats your opinion I would hardly call  information i provided and that you further supplemented a few post earlier   "Zero" .

 

War thunder isnt a study simulation. I dont see what sort of exceptions you have, especially when Study Simulations have guesstimated where there was not enough data for far more Complex Systems or Missiles.

 

By your logic we would also need a HVAR or Bomb manual too i suppose because its too complicated? No like here all thats sufficient are basic stats,  And maybe a cutaway of the weapon. Again apart from that all you need to do is understand how the technology works and general operating procedure  Its not hard to comprehend, and i would say is more than sufficient to validate this as a consideration and possibly to jumpstart eventual implementation.

 

 

There really isnt a Manual for the Missile. IN various  other aircraft manuals that do use the bullpup ( LIke F-100D, F5A or A4)   there isnt much that the AF or NAvy thought was necessary to cover, because there really isnt much to understanding the concept.  IN all of these there is a small section. A basic description on how it works, the related control avionics panel   and what switches one needs to flick in order to enable the missile and fire it,  Control Input , along with some basic statics. . Similarly there is also this section in  the very Fj4/Fj4B supplemental manual  in the links provided if you cared to view it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by kev2go
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • kev2go changed the title to MCLOS based guidance mechanics : ASM-N-7 "Bullpup" ( for the FJ-4B)
17 hours ago, kev2go said:

 

 

If you cant provide any  constructive arguments or any more data then i don't attack the Suggestion . And thats your opinion I would hardly call  information i provided and that you further supplemented a few post earlier   "Zero" .

 

War thunder isnt a study simulation. I dont see what sort of exceptions you have, especially when Study Simulations have guesstimated where there was not enough data for far more Complex Systems or Missiles.

 

By your logic we would also need a HVAR or Bomb manual too i suppose because its too complicated? No like here all thats sufficient are basic stats,  And maybe a cutaway of the weapon. Again apart from that all you need to do is understand how the technology works and general operating procedure  Its not hard to comprehend, and i would say is more than sufficient to validate this as a consideration and possibly to jumpstart eventual implementation.

 

 

There really isnt a Manual for the Missile. IN various  other aircraft manuals that do use the bullpup ( LIke F-100D, F5A or A4)   there isnt much that the AF or NAvy thought was necessary to cover, because there really isnt much to understanding the concept.  IN all of these there is a small section. A basic description on how it works, the related control avionics panel   and what switches one needs to flick in order to enable the missile and fire it,  Control Input , along with some basic statics. . Similarly there is also this section in  the very Fj4/Fj4B supplemental manual  in the links provided if you cared to view it.

Its hard to suggest something you know nothing about.

 

How do you know there's no manual? The military has manuals for everything.

 

 

I like the idea, I really do. There just isn't enough info to add it though. The FJ-4B manual is nice, but is not enough

 

We still don't have any idea the weight of the explosive warhead, which is fairly important.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MandolinMagi said:

Its hard to suggest something you know nothing about.

 

The information available is far from nothing. Its easy to understand how this works. Your critique would only be valid if there was nothing but Wiki  text or similar  used.

 

if by know nothing you mean not being a SME, are you suggesting you happen to know a former MArtin  engineer that is still alive  that can say otherwise?

 

Quote

 

How do you know there's no manual? The military has manuals for everything.

 

I never said there wasn;t one. whats really being suggested i cant find one. And again  that's also speculation on your par.

 

Theres quite alot of stuff also that would be irrelevant since it would pertain to other roles. Were playing pilots not aircraft Service or Logistical storage technicians. \

 

Otherwise if there is more thats not available in your local  Museum archives or On the internet  its up to someone to contact Lockheed Martin to inquire with regards Bullpup documentation to check if there is anything else available. Now thats something that up professional Historical Consultant to do on behalf of a company ( Gajin), rather than a end user

 

 

Quote

 

 

I like the idea, I really do. There just isn't enough info to add it though. The FJ-4B manual is nice, but is not enough

 

Thats your opinion, and i disagree, because its supplemented by those  other sources, which gives us extra background and insights. 

 

Besides you forget its not a prerequisite for Suggestion to Conduct all the research for the Development team. Even if you did. They have historical consultants for  thier own fact checking to confirm what you have provided is correct , or supplement with additional information if  is deemed necessary.

 

I dont know what else you want as your expectations are unrealistic.  OF course the more inforation the better, but  All suggestion in War thunder have been done by Users, not by SME's or Professional Historical Researchers or consultants. By your logic all these other suggestion are automatically invalid because of that? I think not, especially since suggestions have been passed to development with far less being provided from the User's suggestion.

 

This  interaction clearly going nowhere since you seem to be deemed very keen on critiquing this suggestion without yourself having any sustenance  for your  counter- arguments anyways. But then if you did, that would otherwise be adding additional support and bolstering this thread with even more information than it already does.

 

 

Quote

 

We still don't have any idea the weight of the explosive warhead, which is fairly important.

 

Than you must have ignored the sources ( Manual in particular)

 

Warhead is eqv of a 250lb bomb. This version of Bullpup missile itself only weighs 570 lbs.

Edited by kev2go
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kev2go said:

 

Than you must have ignored the sources ( Manual in particular)

 

Warhead has 250lbs of explosives  This version of Bullpup missile itself only weighs 570 lbs.

No, the warhead weighs 250lb. That is not the weight of explosives. Given standard explosives-to-weight ratios, the actual weight of explosives is something around 125-175lb. For all we know, the warhead is a 250lb GP bomb just like the -C uses a 1,000lb SAP bomb.

 

1 hour ago, kev2go said:

 

The information available is far from nothing. Its easy to understand how this works. Your critique would only be valid if there was nothing but Wiki  text or similar  used.

 

if by know nothing you mean not being a SME, are you suggesting you happen to know a former MArtin  engineer that is still alive  that can say otherwise?

I'm not sure what you mean by that second line. What is an SME?

 

1 hour ago, kev2go said:

I never said there wasn;t one. whats really being suggested i cant find one. And again  that's also speculation on your par.

 

Theres quite alot of stuff also that would be irrelevant since it would pertain to other roles. Were playing pilots not aircraft Service or Logistical storage technicians. \

 

Otherwise if there is more thats not available in your local  Museum archives or On the internet  its up to someone to contact Lockheed Martin to inquire with regards Bullpup documentation to check if there is anything else available. Now thats something that up professional Historical Consultant to do on behalf of a company ( Gajin), rather than a end user

LM won't reply. I've email actual companies and museums on this sort of thing before, best you can hope for is a polite "we don't have anything on that" reply

 

"Local museum archives"? Really? This is super-obscure military document National Archives stuff.

 

I did see a safety manual/guide for the Bullpup in the finding guide for Ordinance Pamphlets when I was at the National Archives, but I didn't pull it.

 

1 hour ago, kev2go said:

 

Thats your opinion, and i disagree, because its supplemented by those  other sources, which gives us extra background and insights. 

 

Besides you forget its not a prerequisite for Suggestion to Conduct all the research for the Development team. Even if you did. They have historical consultants for  thier own fact checking to confirm what you have provided is correct , or supplement with additional information if  is deemed necessary.

 

I dont know what else you want as your expectations are unrealistic.  OF course the more inforation the better, but  All suggestion in War thunder have been done by Users, not by SME's or Professional Historical Researchers or consultants. By your logic all these other suggestion are automatically invalid because of that? I think not, especially since suggestions have been passed to development with far less being provided from the User's suggestion.

Maybe I'm biased since I've actually been to an archive, but I've never been impressed with Gajin's research.

 

Okay, went looking

Information on tracking flare

1959 article, 250lb bomb as warhead

Boring nerd metulorgy stuff on warhead casing

screenshot of 1979 book saying 250lb bomb as warhead.

 

 

 

 

Sorry if I'm negative, but there really isn't much to go on here

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MandolinMagi said:

No, the warhead weighs 250lb. That is not the weight of explosives. Given standard explosives-to-weight ratios, the actual weight of explosives is something around 125-175lb. For all we know, the warhead is a 250lb GP bomb just like the -C uses a 1,000lb SAP bomb.

 

:facepalm: Yes  It is the equivalent of a 250lb GP bomb. This was not an assumption based on the  of the warheads  numerical weight alone.  IT says that in the Sources i had. This is really just Strawman levels of nitpicking...... 

 

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-12.html

 

The ASM-N-7 was a roll-stabilized missile, powered by an Aerojet MK 8 solid-fuel rocket motor, and with a simple derivative of a standard 113 kg (250 lb) bomb as warhead.

 

So with ingame implantation when it strike a  target in war thunder Gajin just have to apply the Damage model of a GP  250lb bomb.

 

Quote

 

I'm not sure what you mean by that second line. What is an SME?

 

SME ( Subject Matter Expert) 

 

Quote

 

LM won't reply. I've email actual companies and museums on this sort of thing before, best you can hope for is a polite "we don't have anything on that" reply

 

"Local museum archives"? Really? This is super-obscure military document National Archives stuff.

 

I did see a safety manual/guide for the Bullpup in the finding guide for Ordinance Pamphlets when I was at the National Archives, but I didn't pull it.

 

Maybe I'm biased since I've actually been to an archive, but I've never been impressed with Gajin's research.

 

And yet almost seems with a couple of these sources posted  it seems that you just link anything that might be remotely related to Bullpup. Since you don't list the pertaining page or section of a page that actually might matter to the topic at hand .

 

 

Look dont get me wrong i like that someone helping in some way, but it has to be relevant or IF related beyond Trivial stuff that a developer wouldn't really care to know

 

Quote

Okay, went looking

Information on tracking flare

 

Irrelevant as this pertains to Countermeasures. and flares for various other aircraft.  The flare on  back of the bullpop is so its visually easier to track. But from my sources its already known what its purpose is.

 

 

 

Quote

1959 article, 250lb bomb as warhead

 

ok a backup source, but for the record this was already known.

 

Quote

 

Why post if its lots of unnecessary information? I don't see how caring how thick the casing is will have any impact on game-play? IN Xray viewer we don't see Xray internals of  Ordinance components such HVARS and bombs ETC, so this isn't applicable for that either.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by kev2go
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, a few things:

  1. I support.
  2. The poll seems a bit one sided. :DD
  3. How exactly would this mechanic be implemented?  The bullpup missile isn't exactly a "glide bomb;" it's a guided missile.  You mentioned in the OP the possibility of the ATGM mechanics from ground forces being adapted to aircraft; however, how would this work?  Unlike in ground forces, where you control the tank with WASD, aircraft are mostly either mouse guided or joystick guided, depending on what kind of platform you use.  How would you control your aircraft and guide your missile simultaneously?  Then, of course, there's the problem of velocity.  In a ground vehicle, when you fire an ATGM, you're either stopped or not moving very fast, which allows you to make the necessary corrections to keep your target in the crosshairs while waiting for the missile to reach its target.  Even on helicopters (such as was demonstrated during the 2017 April Fools Event), the launch platform didn't move too quickly, 300 kph tops.  On an aircraft like the F4-JB, however, you're going to be moving at speeds of 800+ kph.  How would this work?  Don't get me wrong, I really want to see this work, but you need to explain the gameplay of this missile a bit more so the rest of us can realistically picture it.
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, RogueStarflyer said:

So, a few things:

  1. I support.
  2. The poll seems a bit one sided. :DD

 

I dont see how so?

 

You either want it or not.  I don't see why Gajin cant go into developing other forms of guided muntions for other nations as long as its not Fire and forget, and Isnt going to be too good ; ( where it makes bombs redundant and make tankers not want to play Ground forces.

 

Quote
  1. How exactly would this mechanic be implemented?  The bullpup missile isn't exactly a "glide bomb;" it's a guided missile.  You mentioned in the OP the possibility of the ATGM mechanics from ground forces being adapted to aircraft; however, how would this work?  Unlike in ground forces, where you control the tank with WASD, aircraft are mostly either mouse guided or joystick guided, depending on what kind of platform you use.

 

This is exactly that is mentioned in the post if you read......

 

 

On 12/06/2018 at 23:20, kev2go said:

 

 

 

 

 

Since this is an MCLOS missile ( Manual Command Line of Sight) the Underlying Foundations can probably be applied from MCLOS based AGTMS from Ground forces to air Forces ( like Racketpanzer 2 or BMP1's Sagger) . Its just a matter of adjusting the warhead explosive power ( 250 lbs) adjusting the numbers to represent the max effective range, and assigning new keyboard controls, SInce WASD in air forces is used for flying, perhaps Numpad key could be used ( 8,4,6,2) 

 

As of this writing The Fj4B is the only plane right now that can use  such a Missile, however there are future potential addition to war thunder  that could benefit from such gameplay mechanics.   A4B+ skyhawk variations, as well as  other tech trees such as  German based  Fiat G91 R3 ( used a French based counterpart ; AS-20 Missile)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote
  1. How would you control your aircraft and guide your missile simultaneously?  Then, of course, there's the problem of velocity.  In a ground vehicle, when you fire an ATGM, you're either stopped or not moving very fast, which allows you to make the necessary corrections to keep your target in the crosshairs while waiting for the missile to reach its target.  Even on helicopters (such as was demonstrated during the 2017 April Fools Event), the launch platform didn't move too quickly, 300 kph tops.  On an aircraft like the F4-JB, however, you're going to be moving at speeds of 800+ kph.  How would this work?  Don't get me wrong, I really want to see this work, but you need to explain the gameplay of this missile a bit more so the rest of us can realistically picture it.


 

 LIke IRL a pilot is expected to control his plane and guide the missile until impact. but as a mentioned in OP and in the my own Requote different set of controls are could be issued such as NUmpad Keys for missile control so it doesnt interfere with WASD  Flight controls ( or joystick)

 

IT is perfectly possible to Hit targets in a Jet like the Fj4B because Pilots were expected to do it IRL, and could do it even in much faster planes that could arm the Bullpup

 

 

 

 

 

From a Virtual Simulation perspective

 

 

 

 

 

Within war thunder It would arguably be easier  than IRL or a Simulation because You dont have to worry about Trimming your aircraft, or keeping your Hand on the stick. If you let go of controls your aircraft sticks in the continual Direction.

Edited by kev2go
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I came to the forums to make this suggestion but as I see its allready bean done.. yeah the FJ-4B is a 9.0 BR Jet that dosent have the speed nor the climbing rate nor the turn time to fight other top tier jets.. nevertheless I like it a lot spaded it allready love to take it out as a ground attacker.. Like I said the jet is lacking a lot as a 9.0 the only logical step is to give it its historical loadouts so you have +1 from me.. btw a new weapon system would be really nice in war thunder 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Senior Suggestion Moderator

As the Bullpup was added with the Good Old S.U.M.M.E.R event,

 

Moved to Implemented Suggestions.:salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...