nighthawk2174

PRF jitter has issues it reduces range what radars use now if PRF switching. You switch between a few distinct PRF's usually 3-4 and get the same effect without as many issues.

You absolutly can in MPRF especially in a monopulse seeker with its extremely good range resolution, especially in mprf. And considering the amraam's lack of need for long range I don't doubt its pulse width isn't quite small fractions of a microsecond. Not to mention other techniques developed to break out closely spaced contacts. Which monopulse seekers are capable of determing and even partially solving for multiple contacts inside its resolution cell.

So RCS increasing when side on is implemented now? Also I know that there are references even the AIM-7 docs to "anti-Split S logic". Exactly what this entails is not discused but its not hard to make a reasonable guess. Its almost certaintly just a damper put on the acceleration command if the targets angular position and velocity meet a certain set of criteria. As such the flight path would look like the red line below instead of green which is what it does now: You can solve for range ambiguity even in HPRF just use PRF switching. Sorta, HPRF seekers are highly ambigous in range so i'm not sure if the ku/ka band amraam seeker would even have an unamiguous range of even that far. Its hard to range gate with HPRF as due to the range ambiguities its hard to seperate clutter from the target when putting returns into the range bins. Exactly Ontop of all of this Monopulse systems are renound for massive S/N gains over even planar arrays. Which would help even more. And yes range to ground clutter and type should be factored in I don't know if it is currently.

I think that implementing them will be important. From aim-7 data it can be as much as 15+% reduction in drag. I really hope you guys do add these effects. For the aim-54 this would be super important due to the low thrust but high burn time.

I've not noticed any changes and from the above tracks i'm seeing the 9X pass well within 7m.

@IronMikeIs the missile fully on the new ED FM? Also are motor on drag reductions a thing?

Yeah some tests of my own indicate that nothing has changed as well. Thanks for doing the leg work on some tracks.

bump will have been a year since the last post and more than 2 since I was asked to make this thread by an Ed team member. Is this ever going to be fixed?

Before the LD-10, which is the same body as the SD-10 and almost certainly the same motor, was significantly overperformaing:

One of the problems with missiles right now it seems that they will pull beyond their seeker gimble limit causing an immediate break lock, that happened a few times in the testing vid above. Additionally split S wise I know that the AIM-7F/M had anti-split S logic. What this exactly this entails is not publicly available but it's not hard to to predict what it does as there's really only one logical possibility. It's almost certainly as simple as an acceleration damper that is enabled so the missile doesn't over pull but stays above the target. Maybe not relevant for the 54A but the 54C i'd be shocked if there wasn't something similar. Maybe something to consider looking into guidance wise ontop of the missile pulling in the the loft instead of following a low G ballistic trajectory.

Yup which is really the big issue here, to really know for sure were going to need an actual motor thrustvtime graph. Until we get one though the fleeman numbers are the best we got. I don't disagree with your conclusion though GG I'm also of the opinion it may be a little slow.

Ohh never seen that manual before thanks for a link! Has there been any changes in regards to the proxy fuzes may be worth asking about. To see if it’s build or track related.

Yeah i did the math that would line up as a possibility. It’d help if we had more info, boost sustain motors are highly variable in how they can be set up.

Well maybe something has been improved internally but we'll have to see the results the next patch. But as of the current patch i'm still seeing missiles in SP pass within fuzing range and not detonate.

I don't have tracks of any of these as I often delete them due to them taking up my limited SDD space but I'm sure you could find tracks/get some quickly: Just a few dedicated threads but its been disscused in a lot of different threads from the latest AMRAAM bug threads back to the original IASTAG CFD thread.

Hmm interesting the max G pull away bug seems to be back in some of the shots. This was a bug seen sometime early last year where a missile if notched, even for a microsecond, will make a hard if not max g pull away from the target. Eating chaff that is well behind the target and at 0 airspeed is apparently also still a thing that's rather disappointing as that was a MAJOR issue since I started playing in 2013. But it seemed to have somewhat go away starting in 2021. Also one of the missiles just didn't reacquire which was strange thought had been somewhat fixed although maybe its not anymore? Lots of different bugs that either i've reported or have seen being represented here.

I've done so in the past and so have others in past threads its just not worth the time. I'm just going to wait for you guys to fix it. I just hope it won't take years.

This unfortunately isn't my experience they seem equally faulty in both SP and MP not that you guys can do anything about it. ED has to fix this.

A big part of this problem was extremely poor maintenance and loaders. The reliability of the missiles climbed dramatically in the navy after programs to train crews were implemented. Ontop of all of that you had pilots who had no to very little knowledge about the limitations of the missiles. I think something like 60-80% of misses were due to out of parameter shots. With most of the rest being maintenance related. The sparrow did have the issue you mentioned which was caused by mutual interference if you had two F4's supporting missiles within extremely close range to each other. However this stopped being a problem in the navy when they dropped the super rigid right on your leads wingtip formations developed by the likes of bode and started using more modern tactics and started flying with greater separations between jets. I thought that the 7E had superior kinematic performance, not to mention a better guidance law with TPN.

The thrust values aren't exactly the same as the AIM-7 SMC their a bit lower thrust and not quite as long burning. Honestly imho I think most of the updated missiles motors in the game are under-performing a little. I wish we had a thrust vs time chart to verify but we don't.

I wouldn't exactly say that, AIM-7F/M use APN while the R24/R27 still use raw PN. They also outrange both missiles as well. Even the AIM-7D uses TPN.

Correct as far as i'm aware.

oh really interesting. Which file would you have to mod?

OK hopefully they actually do look into rebuilding how lookdown works as it is not realistic at all for the radars being discussed here. They have the data to show this too, you guys were given test data on detection ranges for the original version of the APG-63, pre MISP (still waiting on your guys to fix its detection range too....). And that data shows no appreciable difference in look up or look down detection range. Could it be less, sure if your radar is particularly bad in certain aspects. Or in HPRF against cold targets in some situations. I have a strong suspicion this current implementation is based on the stated MIG-29 detection ranges where according to the manual it sees a noticeable decrease in lookdown range. But that radar shouldn't be the basis here has it is rather quite infamous for having a lot of issues.