Jump to content

Comparison of the dynamics of the R-24, R-27 and AIM-7 missiles


Stona_WT
 Share

4 hours ago, Volxar said:

AWOL means away without official leave btw, i dont think missiles can request an official leave at the commanding officer

 

They leave on their own going bonkers, I found the term fitting. (Also, I knew what it meant.)

 

7 hours ago, Grimtax said:

 

You got any clips of that? Wanna see what people mean by AIM-7M go haywire. Never had a problem with that myself

 

I don't have a clip but my most WTF moment was when I came in from top side, enemy was head on flying from the right of the screen towards a friendly plane coming in from the left. I got a solid lock on the enemy plane. I fired an AIM-7F from my F-16 ADF the 2 planes passed each other in the middle of the scree, I maintained a solid lock on the enemy now flying towards the left side of the screen while the friendly went to the right. My AIM-7F completely ignored the solid lock on the enemy and instead of going left, it turned about 90° to the right to teamkill the friendly jet.

I have no idea if there are bugreports on this issue, but right now top tier semi actives feel really random. Your missile might hit the target, but it might turn around and try to teamkill you or your teammates, depending on how the missile feels today. :D

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

17 hours ago, Smin1080p said:

 

If something is believed to be over / under performing in some way and evidence that meets the criteria has been gathered, then a report should be made for the Devs to review. 

 

Discussion topics are not the way to go about reporting an issue if you believe it is one.

For example guys, like this sound report: 

 

AIM-7F incorrect range / performance // Gaijin.net // Issues

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, tripod2008 said:

It was, way back and the response was that it wasn't a bug.

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/RfdZe2n1F4OA

 

This would be correct for this report. Missiles often have to be configured a certain way to achieve certain performance factors in game.

 

AIM-7F is configured to reach 3.3/9.5nm when launched into the rear hemisphere under conditions corresponding to these diagrams:

изображение.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Smin1080p said:

Missiles often have to be configured a certain way to achieve certain performance factors in game.

The Bug report is about the underlying reason for why it needed to have things "configured a certain way" instead of using the known values.

 

The AIM-7F/M's motor (in game) has the mass staging backwards where it erroneously burns the weight of the sustain motor's fuel at "End of Boost" stage of flight and then at End of Sustain has burnt the Booster's fuel mass. and as such this has a massive impact on the kinematics as less energy is needed to maintain momentum so the resultant acceleration is higher than it should be, and so is part of the reason why it is overperforming known values by so much as the Sustain motor has more mass than the Boost motor so the missile is lighter than it should be for the majority of the flight even if the weight at the End of Sustain is correct.

 

you can find the (correct this time) math in the below spoiler that should help highlight the issue in the spoiler below

 

Spoiler

data from the sheet indicates staging weights(kg) go

start; 231.33>EoB;193.68>EoS;170.1

from the source

weights are listed as

All up mass ;231.32(510lb) 

Boost fuel is; 23.58(52lb)

Sustain fuel; 37.64(82lb)

 

So as a boost-sustain motor it goes All up>EoB>EoS

so staging should go

All up = 231.32

End of Boost = 231.32-23.58=207.74

End of Sustain = 207.74-37.64=170.10

 

if you look above you will notice that the weights are different to the correct staging "order" and if we reverse the staging where the sustain fuel is used first, then the boost we get the "familiar" weights.

231.32-37.64=190.68
190.68-23.58=170.1

 

Q.E.D

 

 

 A 2nd corrective report that explains the same thing as above at the following link

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/T6R96CAqqwsg

Edited by tripod2008
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Grimtax said:

 

You got any clips of that? Wanna see what people mean by AIM-7M go haywire. Never had a problem with that myself

i don't have it, i'll try to see if any battle replay on the server side show this because i'm unable to record my own gameplay

 

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/01/2023 at 04:28, InterFleet said:

4. adjust Multipath altitude for each individual missiles, Monopulse missiles should have significantly lower multipath altitude, British sources states that skyflash can operate against target flying as low as 33m (100ft), AIM-7M H-build should have similar capabilities as well as AIM54A, R-24/27s

Even if the missiles were capable of tracking targets that low, how do we know the aircraft radar guiding them are capable of tracking targets that low as well? If the tracking radar isn't on the target due to multipath does a good seeker even help?

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Technical Moderator
59 minutes ago, Spychicken said:

Even if the missiles were capable of tracking targets that low, how do we know the aircraft radar guiding them are capable of tracking targets that low as well? If the tracking radar isn't on the target due to multipath does a good seeker even help?

Radar and missile seeker are independent, which is the reason why even if the radar suffers from multi path issue, it is up to the missile seeker for terminal guidance.

Furthermore, you can use ECCM techniques to minimize Terrain Bounce by focusing on skin return instead of Bounce Signal, which is the reason why sky flash have significantly lower minimum engagement altitude compared to AIM7E2 variant IRL, along with the use of a inverse monopulse seeker.

303545177_Screenshot2023-01-11at11_05_38

Edited by InterFleet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, InterFleet said:

Radar and missile seeker are independent, which is the reason why even if the radar suffers from multi path issue, it is up to the missile seeker for terminal guidance.

Furthermore, you can use ECCM techniques to minimize Terrain Bounce by focusing on skin return instead of Bounce Signal, which is the reason why sky flash have significantly lower minimum engagement altitude compared to AIM7E2 variant IRL, along with the use of a inverse monopulse seeker.

303545177_Screenshot2023-01-11at11_05_38

 

can  you link the text you use, I wanna read up some more an how radar and missiles work in conjuction

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Technical Moderator
15 minutes ago, Grimtax said:

 

can  you link the text you use, I wanna read up some more an how radar and missiles work in conjuction

sure! 

Introduction to Airborne Radar by George T Stimson, very good book

http://twanclik.free.fr/electricity/electronic/pdfdone8/Introduction_to_Airborne_Radar.pdf

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zzoega said:

I believe it would be interesting with a r27ER/T/A vs aim 120A thread to discuss the balance between those two missiles

As the phoenix is currently demonstrating, there is virtually no balance between SAHRs and ARHs. The 27ERs are faster and go quite a bit further out than early AMRAAMs but if you're the one slinging amraams you can just go cold knowing your missile will get to your target on its own. Alternatively, if you see your target defending you can keep your nose pointed at them, closing the range, safe in the knowledge that the 27 is trashed  

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Prophet1313 said:

As the phoenix is currently demonstrating, there is virtually no balance between SAHRs and ARHs. The 27ERs are faster and go quite a bit further out than early AMRAAMs but if you're the one slinging amraams you can just go cold knowing your missile will get to your target on its own. Alternatively, if you see your target defending you can keep your nose pointed at them, closing the range, safe in the knowledge that the 27 is trashed  

Early amraam also need guiding at first, so I believe it would actually be quite balanced. You can still notch the slower and shorter ranged amraam. Difference is r27er need to be guided in the last stage but it's also much faster and longer range

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, zzoega said:

Early amraam also need guiding at first, so I believe it would actually be quite balanced. You can still notch the slower and shorter ranged amraam. Difference is r27er need to be guided in the last stage but it's also much faster and longer range

All AMRAAMs need some amount of post launch guidance for mid course correction (unless launched in pitbull mode). The missile however goes active 10ish n.miles out. Once the missile goes active it doesn't need anything else from the launch aircraft, it selects and locks on a target (whatever is Infront of it) and choses the best way to get to the target on its own. 

  • Thanks 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/01/2023 at 05:29, tripod2008 said:

The Bug report is about the underlying reason for why it needed to have things "configured a certain way" instead of using the known values.

 

The AIM-7F/M's motor (in game) has the mass staging backwards where it erroneously burns the weight of the sustain motor's fuel at "End of Boost" stage of flight and then at End of Sustain has burnt the Booster's fuel mass. and as such this has a massive impact on the kinematics as less energy is needed to maintain momentum so the resultant acceleration is higher than it should be, and so is part of the reason why it is overperforming known values by so much as the Sustain motor has more mass than the Boost motor so the missile is lighter than it should be for the majority of the flight even if the weight at the End of Sustain is correct.

 

you can find the (correct this time) math in the below spoiler that should help highlight the issue in the spoiler below

 

Hide contents

data from the sheet indicates staging weights(kg) go

start; 231.33>EoB;193.68>EoS;170.1

from the source

weights are listed as

All up mass ;231.32(510lb) 

Boost fuel is; 23.58(52lb)

Sustain fuel; 37.64(82lb)

 

So as a boost-sustain motor it goes All up>EoB>EoS

so staging should go

All up = 231.32

End of Boost = 231.32-23.58=207.74

End of Sustain = 207.74-37.64=170.10

 

if you look above you will notice that the weights are different to the correct staging "order" and if we reverse the staging where the sustain fuel is used first, then the boost we get the "familiar" weights.

231.32-37.64=190.68
190.68-23.58=170.1

 

Q.E.D

 

 

 A 2nd corrective report that explains the same thing as above at the following link

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/T6R96CAqqwsg

Stepanovich responded to my own testing (no video or evidence to prove his performance claims) whereas it clearly hit at 30 miles in my video.


The claim is that there is some magical +5-10% margin for error in the range from rear aspect and that it translates to an even greater margin of error to frontal aspect. This is not accurate, or correct. I'd like to see where he came up with those numbers as he thinks that 24nm head-on range is an acceptable compromise but that doesn't change the fact that the booster and sustainer propellent weights were swapped around.

 

The AIM-7F at the moment is still overperforming drastically even going by his math (which is wrong as detailed). He claims 24nm is accurate which is 27 normal miles, my missile hit at 30 or (26nm).

On 11/01/2023 at 03:09, Smin1080p said:

 

This would be correct for this report. Missiles often have to be configured a certain way to achieve certain performance factors in game.

 

AIM-7F is configured to reach 3.3/9.5nm when launched into the rear hemisphere under conditions corresponding to these diagrams:

изображение.png

No, according to the devs it is configured with some arbitrary 5-10% extra range in mind for rear aspect which I have found no source or justification for. The incorrect propellent weight changes after initial booster necessitated the changes in thrust to meet that arbitrary performance figure that the devs came up with (exceeding the range in the manual).

Those changes drastically increased the frontal launch range criteria, so as per my video in the bug report it will hit at 26 nautical miles, not 20. This is a 30% increase in range over real life kinematic performance.

If need be, thrust can be modified once again beyond the historical values to reach the necessary ranges from rear aspect but the propellent weights should be historical to do so, as right now it has too much propellent for the booster phase and not sufficient amounts for the sustainer.

Edited by MiG_23M
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, MiG_23M said:

Stepanovich responded to my own testing (no video or evidence to prove his performance claims) whereas it clearly hit at 30 miles in my video.


The claim is that there is some magical +5-10% margin for error in the range from rear aspect and that it translates to an even greater margin of error to frontal aspect. This is not accurate, or correct. I'd like to see where he came up with those numbers as he thinks that 24nm head-on range is an acceptable compromise but that doesn't change the fact that the booster and sustainer propellent weights were swapped around.

 

The AIM-7F at the moment is still overperforming drastically even going by his math (which is wrong as detailed). He claims 24nm is accurate which is 27 normal miles, my missile hit at 30 or (26nm).

No, according to the devs it is configured with some arbitrary 5-10% extra range in mind for rear aspect which I have found no source or justification for. The incorrect propellent weight changes after initial booster necessitated the changes in thrust to meet that arbitrary performance figure that the devs came up with (exceeding the range in the manual).

Those changes drastically increased the frontal launch range criteria, so as per my video in the bug report it will hit at 26 nautical miles, not 20. This is a 30% increase in range over real life kinematic performance.

If need be, thrust can be modified once again beyond the historical values to reach the necessary ranges from rear aspect but the propellent weights should be historical to do so, as right now it has too much propellent for the booster phase and not sufficient amounts for the sustainer.

it might be worth just making a simple report using the -7F's SMC to prove the "End of Boost" mass is wrong and nothing else and let them handle things from there as the issues stem from that mistake.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, tripod2008 said:

it might be worth just making a simple report using the -7F's SMC to prove the "End of Boost" mass is wrong and nothing else and let them handle things from there as the issues stem from that mistake.

SMC?

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, tripod2008 said:

Oh, my sources. @Smin1080p says no datamine info can be used so I'd need to prove it somehow in-game without using the datamine info.

Well, I disagree with that statement and think it hinders the bug reporting process severely but I believe datamining goes against the user agreement or some other piece of info which is why. Nothing we can do there.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MiG_23M said:

somehow in-game without using the datamine info.

I guess acceleration / velocity vs downrange during the boost phase is the only option for that, as acceleration is higher than it should be due to erroneous thrust / weight 

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, tripod2008 said:

I guess acceleration / velocity vs downrange during the boost phase is the only option for that, as acceleration is higher than it should be due to erroneous thrust / weight 

They claim this was modified to meet range criteria, can't prove without datamined info.

image.png

 

@k_stepanovich Says that there is a margin of 5-10% for tail-on case. There is no source or logic for this, but assuming he is right it is still overperforming as the frontal range which I received a kill is >30 miles.

My kill range was 48.2 - 49.8km, this is 30-31 miles and 26-27 nautical miles.

This suggests it is overperforming, the datamined information you provided earlier we can easily see the problem was the accidentally swapped propellent weights for sustainer and booster.

Spoiler

image.png


The only way we can fix this is by showing datamine info and hoping that @k_stepanovich understands the issue and is able to correct it accordingly.
Even if they think the range is correct, the booster values should be fixed and thrust / drag changed accordingly and to bring the missile performance to a more realistic level that is not 30% more than the manual states at sea level.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MiG_23M said:

They claim this was modified to meet range criteria, can't prove without datamined info.

image.png

 

@k_stepanovich Says that there is a margin of 5-10% for tail-on case. There is no source or logic for this, but assuming he is right it is still overperforming as the frontal range which I received a kill is >30 miles.

My kill range was 48.2 - 49.8km, this is 30-31 miles and 26-27 nautical miles.

This suggests it is overperforming, the datamined information you provided earlier we can easily see the problem was the accidentally swapped propellent weights for sustainer and booster.

Reveal hidden contents


The only way we can fix this is by showing datamine info and hoping that @k_stepanovich understands the issue and is able to correct it accordingly.
Even if they think the range is correct, the booster values should be fixed and thrust / drag changed accordingly and to bring the missile performance to a more realistic level that is not 30% more than the manual states at sea level.

I know Matawg has a mod or something that allows him to see the planes AoA, Fuel in KG, how much kg of fuel he currently burns per minute and some more that I'm not remembering right now.

 

What I'm meaning to say is that maybe some coder is able to make such script for missiles too? Where it can show you the missiles weight and fuel in kg in real time? Just a guess but that might also count as "datamined" info.

 

And it's really strange they won't accept it in their bug reports.. As if they know it's wrong..

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, zzoega said:

I know Matawg has a mod or something that allows him to see the planes AoA, Fuel in KG, how much kg of fuel he currently burns per minute and some more that I'm not remembering right now.

 

What I'm meaning to say is that maybe some coder is able to make such script for missiles too? Where it can show you the missiles weight and fuel in kg in real time? Just a guess but that might also count as "datamined" info.

 

And it's really strange they won't accept it in their bug reports.. As if they know it's wrong..

I don't think there is such a program for the missiles themselves.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...