The AIM-7 Sparrow Missile - Information & Discussion topic

[Rapitor 10,702]

I'd be interested to see how anyone can actually interpret the game code by looking at variables alone.

 

Datamining doesn't grant you the understanding of the code. It allows you to guess what variables could do.

 

[Iron_physik 3,485]

8 hours ago, Rapitor said:

I'd be interested to see how anyone can actually interpret the game code by looking at variables alone.

 

Datamining doesn't grant you the understanding of the code. It allows you to guess what variables could do.

 

exactly

however if you know how to make usermodels you can test each variable and what it does to the missiles

thats how most knowledge is gained.

 

and alot of variables are self explaining, such as prox fuze radius, thrust and burn time of motors, explosives etc...

11 hours ago, MiG_Slapper said:

Maybe @Iron_physik may be able to elaborate on what these gates are?

nope

[k_stepanovich 326]

On 28/08/2020 at 22:34, oppsijustkilledu@psn said:

They need to give the british phantoms there pulse doppler radars they historically had and not the copy paste F4C radar. So they can make good use of the sparrows.

No pulse-doppler radars are available in the game now.

F-4M FGR.2 and T-2 have pulse radars without LD/SD capability instead of their native radar (part of their AN/AWG-10 weapon control system).

It prevents these aircraft from becoming imbalanced espescially after SARH missiles introduction.

[oppsijustkilledu@psn 2,314]

20 minutes ago, k_stepanovich said:

No pulse-doppler radars are available in the game now.

F-4M FGR.2 and T-2 have pulse radars without LD/SD capability instead of their native radar (part of their AN/AWG-10 weapon control system).

It prevents these aircraft from becoming imbalanced espescially after SARH missiles introduction.

What do you mean have pulse radars without LD/SD capability(FGR.2 used AN/AWG12)? Wording is throwing me off. The british phantoms are using in game AN/APQ100 from the F4C phantom. Giving them there actual radars without the LD/SD capability would be a great alternative instead of copy pasting a radar over they never used especially when the radar on the likes of the F4E is capable of limited LD/SD

 

Edited September 2, 2020 by oppsijustkilledu@psn

[k_stepanovich 326]

On 01/09/2020 at 00:22, Celestia said:

 

No, the AIM-7E should not gain any benefit as the seeker head cannot acquire an illuminated target among the ground clutter. It might benefit from a stronger radar signal strength and gain a target lock sooner/longer range but without the improved sensors and guidance it would be no better of a missile than on the F4C with it's native radar.

All AIM-7 since AIM-7C were equipped with CW doppler seeker, which uses speed gate to track the target and to discriminate it from the ground clutter by its radial speed.

AIM-7F supports both CW and HPRF (pulse-doppler) signals provided by illumination antenna onboard the fighter - this is the "pulse-doppler" difference from AIM-7E.

How good seeker of different AIM-7 missiles discriminate ground clutter - is a good question. In general the more modern AIM-7 is, the better works the discrimination.

In some situations, when the position of the target is not good enough, ground clutter discrimination always works bad or doesn't work at all.

 

There is no connection with fighere radar. With SARH missiles you actually have two radars:

1st radar is the fighter radar, which tracks the target - monostatic radar.

2nd radar is Illumination antenna onboard the fighter and the missile seeker - bistatic radar.

Both radars work independently from each other after missile launch. Before the missile launch fighter radar provides missile with the information about direction to the target and

its radial speed to allow missile to lock on the target.

 

It may happen that a fighter radar can't detect and track targets below the horizon, but its missiles can - SD without LD. This is the problem for F-4C/E.

F-4J for example has full LD/SD capability as its radar has pulse-doppler mode to detect and track targets below the horizon.

[k_stepanovich 326]

On 27/08/2020 at 03:56, Southernbear said:

Oh and Gaijin is totally using the IR code for FOX 1s, I just had a friend lock up a enemy AI Ar 234 at 3-4km and the missile swerved off to the left and hit the friend AI that was about 1.5km aside from the Ar 234 despite him keeping a solid radar lock on the arado the whole time. So Friendly fire will still be a thing...

The missile seeker and the fighter radar work independently from each other.

The missile seeker has wider beam width and uses speed gate for tracking, while fighter radar has narrow beam width and uses range gate for tracking.

If the missile seeker beam width is 10 degrees (for -3Db from maximum) and both targets are inside this sector and both targets have the same radial speed the missile can't discrimniate them. This is how it works in real life.

IR seekers have narrow FoV (2-5 degrees), but they don't use speed / range gate, but  so it happens to them as well.

There are no such effects in Arcade battles.

32 minutes ago, oppsijustkilledu@psn said:

What do you mean have pulse radars without LD/SD capability(FGR.2 used AN/AWG12)? Wording is throwing me off. The british phantoms are using in game AN/APQ100 from the F4C phantom. Giving them there actual radars without the LD/SD capability would be a great alternative instead of copy pasting a radar over they never used especially when the radar on the likes of the F4E is capable of limited LD/SD

 

Have you ever seen the name AN/APQ-100 in the game? I haven't.

Until we add the radars names and the information about the radars and other sensors into the aircraft info cards or into X-Ray we don't have APQ..., APG.., we have F-4C radar, MiG-21SMT radar e.t.c.

[oppsijustkilledu@psn 2,314]

34 minutes ago, k_stepanovich said:

 

Have you ever seen the name AN/APQ-100 in the game? I haven't.

Until we add the radars names and the information about the radars and other sensors into the aircraft info cards or into X-Ray we don't have APQ..., APG.., we have F-4C radar, MiG-21SMT radar e.t.c.

Whilst it's not visible in game, like I cant go onto my ps4 and see it. People on PC have said AN/APQ100 is what the F4C radar is called in the files supposedly. 

 

I just hope we see the correct radar in the future on the british phantoms the pulse doppler of the FG.1(AN/AWG10) and FGR.2(AN/AWG12) as if you ever plan on adding skyflash having the correct radar will necessary for it to be used. Anyway I've just got in from work time to see how these sparrows do in game I'm sure they will be fun.

 

Also thanks for the answers.

Edited September 2, 2020 by oppsijustkilledu@psn

[oppsijustkilledu@psn 2,314]

Honestly I dont get it, me and another person flying directly at each other through some light cloud he can get perfect radar lock on me and cant get any kind of lock or even pick up him on radar. Only difference is the F4E has different radar. This is why we need correct radar on correct aircraft

Edited September 2, 2020 by oppsijustkilledu@psn

[Bydaniel857 321]

1 hour ago, k_stepanovich said:

Have you ever seen the name AN/APQ-100 in the game? I haven't.

Until we add the radars names and the information about the radars and other sensors into the aircraft info cards or into X-Ray we don't have APQ..., APG.., we have F-4C radar, MiG-21SMT radar e.t.c.

What do you mean with this? in a near future we will have correct radar names with the correct IRL performance?

[Охраняет-Камни 6,650]

@k_stepanovich is there anything special about F-104S? Afaik irl it needed Vulcan cannon to be removed to operate Sparrows or Aspides (for ASA) or am I wrong?

[Rapitor 10,702]

1 hour ago, _Condottiero_ said:

@k_stepanovich is there anything special about F-104S? Afaik irl it needed Vulcan cannon to be removed to operate Sparrows or Aspides (for ASA) or am I wrong?

It is known and already reported. Likely to be fixed in the future (soon tm)

 

Guys, don't bombard our friendly devs with too many questions and too many quotes, he might vanish otherwise =)

[Bydaniel857 321]

1 minute ago, Rapitor said:

It is known and already reported. Likely to be fixed in the future (soon tm)

 

Guys, don't bombard our friendly devs with too many questions and too many quotes, he might vanish otherwise =)

yeah true, sorry stepanovich 

[Охраняет-Камни 6,650]

23 minutes ago, Rapitor said:

It is known and already reported. Likely to be fixed in the future (soon tm)

I just wonder why it should remove the cannon to install the equipment needed for SAHR, unlike Phantoms for example. Maybe there is some feature that F-104S has compared to others or maybe it's just to lower the weight, because of its interceptor role.

Edited September 2, 2020 by _Condottiero_

[Bydaniel857 321]

1 minute ago, _Condottiero_ said:

I just wonder why it should remove the cannon to install the equipment needed for SAHR, unlike Phantoms for example. Maybe there is some feature that F-104S has compared to others or maybe it's just to lower the weight, because of its interceptor role.

i think they changed the gun for an actual illuminator and the missile guidance equipment

Edited September 2, 2020 by Bydaniel857

[Rapitor 10,702]

F-4's were designed with the idea of having SAHR missiles.

The AIM-7 is literally part of the plane

 

F-104 wasn't.

 

The 104S is the only 104 with Aim-7 capabilities iirc. It came because Italian wanted to extend the life of their 104 and because they had improved version of the Aim-7 built in their country.

[Nicolaser 2,024]

33 minutes ago, Rapitor said:

F-4's were designed with the idea of having SAHR missiles.

The AIM-7 is literally part of the plane

 

F-104 wasn't.

 

The 104S is the only 104 with Aim-7 capabilities iirc. It came because Italian wanted to extend the life of their 104 and because they had improved version of the Aim-7 built in their country.

I thought that f104S had to trade the vulcan to use the aim7

[oppsijustkilledu@psn 2,314]

My AIM7 never seem to work even under perfect conditions. They all fail to track and blow up.

[The_Monolith 860]

1 hour ago, oppsijustkilledu@psn said:

My AIM7 never seem to work even under perfect conditions. They all fail to track and blow up.

Same here. I've tried everything and it seems completely random. Mine have a 75% failure rate.

[oppsijustkilledu@psn 2,314]

16 minutes ago, MiG_Slapper said:

Same here. I've tried everything and it seems completely random. Mine have a 75% failure rate.

I've tried everything to get them to work even leaving like 10 seconds between locking missile and firing to make sure its locked. They just just fly in a straight line and explode. 

[LolUMadBro 31]

Yea Aim-7's are doggy doodoo, fired 4 in one match and they all didn't even attempt to track and just blew up 

[Zetaris 267]

7 hours ago, k_stepanovich said:

Have you ever seen the name AN/APQ-100 in the game? I haven't.

Until we add the radars names and the information about the radars and other sensors into the aircraft info cards or into X-Ray we don't have APQ..., APG.., we have F-4C radar, MiG-21SMT radar e.t.c.

 

He was probably quoting the claim I made earlier. I said FGR.2 has AN/APQ-100 because that's what the aircraft fm files say:

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

In any case, thanks for taking the time to explain some things about how radar works Mr. stepanovich. Seems like a very complicated topic, even in War Thunder.

[TeaParty4622 301]

15 hours ago, k_stepanovich said:

No pulse-doppler radars are available in the game now.

F-4M FGR.2 and T-2 have pulse radars without LD/SD capability instead of their native radar (part of their AN/AWG-10 weapon control system).

It prevents these aircraft from becoming imbalanced espescially after SARH missiles introduction.

 

FGR.2 used AN/APG-61, licensed AN/APG-59, with AN/AWG-9, forming AN/AWG-12 as basis.

 

From SAC F-4J august 1973, AN/APG-59 radar was shown.

http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/SAC.htm

https://www.avialogs.com/aircraft-m/mcdonnell-douglas/item/56425-

While one of FG mk.1 navigation and bombing system aircraft servicing manual here says AN/APG-59 was bound with AN/AWG-11.(page 212)

http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/2016/11/phantom-fg-mk-1-aircrew-manual.html?m=1

But the flight manual of FG mk.1 says it has AN/APG-60 radar set.(149-151)

...and AN/AWG-11(page 188)

 

So this means AN/APG-59, AN/APG-60, AN/APG-61 has identical performance of each other? And if devs corrects the performance and capability of AN/APG-59/60/61 radar series, FGR.2, FG.1, T-2K, and even potential add-possible candidates like F-4J or S can be beneficial from it? 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2020 by Neptune42

[Zetaris 267]

Some results from brief testing of the AIM-7D and E:

 

In a rear-aspect shot at 15,000, 0.9M, the AIM-7E should have a maximum launch range of 2.5nmi / 4.6km according to F-4B/J/N tactical manual. In-game, however, it can achieve a launch range of at least 6km. This is to be expected, since the AIM-7E's motor puts out 43,300N / 9,730lbf for 2.8s, when it should be about 33,800N / 7,600lbf if we go with this source.

 

Spoiler

 

 

I can't make any definitive judgements about the AIM-7D, but it somehow has an even greater launch range than the AIM-7E under identical conditions (6.5km in the case below). Although it has 13,000N / 2,900lbf of thrust, the AIM-7D's rocket motor lasts for 10 seconds, thereby sustaining higher speeds for a longer duration of flight (as opposed to AIM-7E, which quickly accelerates to very high speed, but also quickly loses speed afterwards).

 

EDIT: AIM-7D thrust is now 52,000N for 2.1 seconds. This has reduced its launch range down to about 5km in the scenario described above.

 

Spoiler

 

 

@Rapitor let me know if bug reporting this is necessary. I don't know if the devs working on this are already aware or not.

Edited September 3, 2020 by Zetaris

[TeaParty4622 301]

AIM-9J SEA introduction checo report.pdf

Mainly about AIM-9E and J, but brief history about AIM-7D, E, and E-2's introduction is included. 

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2020 by Neptune42

[k_stepanovich 326]

14 hours ago, MiG_Slapper said:

Same here. I've tried everything and it seems completely random. Mine have a 75% failure rate.

AIM-7 missiles are not a "click to kill" weapon. They have a lot of limitations and require skills.

 

1. AIM-7 doesn't lock on the target before launch. It starts searching its target 2 seconds after the launch. Even if the target was in the search cone of the missile seeker before the launch it may appear outside 2 seconds after the launch. It means that in the same conditions AIM-7 has much greater minimal distance than IR-missiles.

Large minimal launch distance and limited G-capability (due the missile autopilot) mean that AIM-7D/E are not dogfight missiles.

 

2. AIM-7 seeker suffers from ground clutter. Below I used very good source provided by Iron_physik about the AIM-7E/E-2 missiles to illustrate this effect.