AIM-7M Sparrow performance

[AussieGhost789]

Oh lord... Many senitive toes being stepped on here ;) I hear you... training, tactics, and sa matters. But to say that the airframe and weapons don't matter is total bs. Two equally sklled pilots engage in BVR, one in F15 and one in a Mig29, both with SARH missiles. It doesent take a genious to figure out that the Mig29 should be at a disadvantage until WVR. Why do you think that the Mig29 got the helmet sight early on? They figured out that the BVR was not up to par with fighters such as the F15. Im not saying that ED should change anything. But the red birds should be a bit more flawed and their R27 should be a bit more unreliable and outperformed by the Aim-7M. Realistic as the technology often was rewerse engineered and industry frequently had quality issues.

 

Do you not think that an AIM-7M armed F-15C already has the advantage against an R-27R (NOT ER!), R-60 armed MiG-29A in the sim? If we are talking about an R-27ER armed MiG-29 then it is not all that surprising that you are being out ranged. The R-27ER has range capabilities more similar to the AIM-120.

 

What is the actual problem here? I mean, yes the AIM-7 under performs, but so does every missile in the game.

[ShuRugal]

FYI, my favorite Eagle times are when using 1980's loadout vs Flanker 1980's loadouts..

 

That puts you in a minority among Eagle pilots on the 104th. As was already mentioned, you can easily verify this by watching the number of Eagles shrink dramatically when the mission rotates to a non-AMRAAM loadout restriction.

 

In the case Etiopia vs Eritrea, from what I remember, up to 24 R-27's were fired without scoring any hits. Only heaters such as R60 or R73 was effective. Yes, I think the R-27 type missile has serious issues, not present in DCS.

 

Except, of course, that without knowing the launch parameters, there is no way to judge the reliability of the missile.

 

What we DO know is that most (all?) of the Su-27 pilots involved in that conflict were mercenaries. Typically, mercenaries are NOT prepared to give their life in pursuit of a kill. Those who fight for pay have a strong incentive to survive the fight so they can spend their pay. While this is only an assumption, it is a fairly reasonable bet that those shots were taken from low-risk positions.

[DarkFire]

What we DO know is that most (all?) of the Su-27 pilots involved in that conflict were mercenaries. Typically, mercenaries are NOT prepared to give their life in pursuit of a kill. Those who fight for pay have a strong incentive to survive the fight so they can spend their pay. While this is only an assumption, it is a fairly reasonable bet that those shots were taken from low-risk positions.

 

This. Given the lack of information relating to that conflict, it's impossible to answer any of these questions:

 

1. What was the maintenance condition of the launched missiles?

2. What was the maintenance condition of the launching aircraft & systems?

3. How many of the missiles were launched within valid parameters for the given targets?

4. Of this number, how many missiles successfully ignited and guided towards their intended targets?

5. Of this number, how many hit?

6. Of this number, how many kills were achieved?

 

Without knowing any of the answers, isolating actual missile performance / Pk from other factors is impossible. When evaluating strictly missile Pk, the only question is:

 

7. Of the missiles that were launched within valid parameters, and for which the motors ignited, how many failed to hit the target?

 

Don't know. Therefore I'd say that the Ethiopia / Eritrea conflict provides at best inconclusive data, and at worst is a useless measure of R-27 performance. What would be useful would be the original (and more recent) VKS test data on the missile, and I very much doubt that data will ever be available.

 

Respectfully, I think we're once again going around in circles with this discussion. We know, provably, that the Cd for all missiles in DCS is too large. The reasons for this have long since been expressed by ED, as have the reasons why they're reluctant to change the situation. I'm also prepared to believe, based on available evidence that many of us have demonstrated, that SARH missiles are overly susceptible to decoy by chaff and possibly ground clutter. Again the reasons for this have been expressly stated by ED.

 

I submit that unless we could compare proven and verified missile test data from the USAF (and USN / USMC) with verified test data from the VVS / PVO / VKS, the question of absolute and relative missile performance will always be an unknown.

[IASGATG]

Good job we have proven and verified missile test data from the USAF and USN. Shame it isn't enough.

[Schmidtfire]

I know you tried, great effort on the mod. Shame that it was not taken the right way. Not many like to be proven wrong, It's a cultural thing and not your fault. Someday I hope that we get more realistic missiles. I think that LN is on a good path with their own Aim-54 Phoenix.

[DarkFire]

Good job we have proven and verified missile test data from the USAF and USN. Shame it isn't enough.

 

If we have it then the in-game missiles should be adjusted to fit, no question about that.

[*Rage*]

What we DO know is that most (all?) of the Su-27 pilots involved in that conflict were mercenaries.

 

Actually im told that in that conflict the pilots were indeed indigeinous but were being trained by mercenaries. According to my source the pilots were rookies (noobs:doh:) that launched essentially at max range and turned away at the first sign of being spiked hence prematurely trashing their missiles. The mercenaries had to encourage them to at least try to guide them in and launch at more threatening ranges.

 

But who knows. Theres no way to prove it either way.

[IASGATG]

If we have it then the in-game missiles should be adjusted to fit, no question about that.

 

I agree, I don't make the rules though.

 

I mean on page seven I posted to pictures which are but a small excerpt of what is available. But... Alas it doesn't fit with certain.. doctrines.

[Sweep]

I think that LN is on a good path with their own Aim-54 Phoenix.

 

I don't remember what time-periods LN is modelling, but if its ANYTHING like MiG-21, we might see some more competitive AIM-7s.

 

I really hope they go full R-3R on it, man....... :P

[winchesterdelta1]

I know you tried, great effort on the mod. Shame that it was not taken the right way. Not many like to be proven wrong, It's a cultural thing and not your fault. Someday I hope that we get more realistic missiles. I think that LN is on a good path with their own Aim-54 Phoenix.

 

Hmmm if the AIM-54 sparrow and other missiles can be created by separate 3th party developers, than they can also develop their own versions of AIM-7 and AIM-120C right. In the Mirage you can choose two versions of the same missile anyway at the moment. So it's totally possible. Maybe instead of thinking in issue's we have to start thinking in solutions. This would be a viable and legal go around to create other missiles.

Mission editors would have total control on what missiles they allow and are available in the mission. And andre pro is that missiles from other modules become integrated in the game anyway otherwise the clients that don't have that module are still being effected by it and can see the missile.

 

Maybe you are talking to the wrong people IASGATG to try and get these adjustments in the game. Maybe this thinking is to positive... But that doesn't matter anyway.. The other solution takes to long for most people taste. I can live with the situation now. But better and more realistic is always something i would vote for.

[SinusoidDelta]

"How many a dispute could have been deflated into a single paragraph if the disputants had just dared to define their terms."

 

Too many threads that go on endlessly like this. Thanks for the AIM-7 SMC Scat. Despite it being antiquated, it's the only post in the thread with technical information.

 

Is it purely the drag coefficient causing such poor missile performance? If you correct the Cd, what happens to the missile guidance?

[TAW_Blaze]

"How many a dispute could have been deflated into a single paragraph if the disputants had just dared to define their terms."

 

Too many threads that go on endlessly like this. Thanks for the AIM-7 SMC Scat. Despite it being antiquated, it's the only post in the thread with technical information.

 

Is it purely the drag coefficient causing such poor missile performance? If you correct the Cd, what happens to the missile guidance?

 

Nothing, you can miss your missiles from bigger ranges. This is why many of us care more about guidance issues getting attention instead of ranges. Having range is all well and good but guidance is far more important. Reducing range will only downscale engagements, ****ing up the guidance will mess with meta tactics and the outcome of various situations in a manner that makes no sense. That's the real problem. If you got a royal flush you shouldn't lose to a guy because the wind blew your cards into the trash.

[IASGATG]

Missiles break down like this.

 

1) How the maths equations are written. The equations are long, complicated and need to work for both sub, trans and supersonic in some capacity. Not only this but for changing AoA and all kind of stuff. If the maths is wrong everything else falls down.

 

2) The profiling of the missile itself. What values the equations are told the missile has. Put into simple terms, this is it's mass, its thrust, its Cd, Cl, Cg, etc etc. If any of these are off the missile falls down.

 

3) Guiding the missile. Different missiles have different guidance logics that are mostly an educated guess as to how they work. For your early day missiles like your R-3, R-60, 9Ps, 7E's, etc, this is relatively easy as they are pretty much just PN guided with maybe a couple of variables to help stop them flying into the ground.

 

As the missiles get more advanced, so does the guidance. We run into a speculative wall as it just how smart these missiles are. We have the luxuary that as a video game we can give the missile perfect information about the target in real time. What % of this omniscience should we give the missile to try and simulate actual guidance. So we probably go for APN guidance for your 27R's and 7M's.

 

Then you get into stuff like lofting which add a whole new level of ass-pain for the guidance to make missiles like the 54, 77, 120 get the ranges their meant to have.

 

4) Countermeasure/Counter Measure Rejection. What flares do to an IR seeker is very different to what chaff does to a radar seeker. However from how I understand the game engine, this isn't the case. What this results in is a situation where dumping out 400 flares is really good against an IR missile because the IR missile will always go for the hotter source (Unless we get FPA seekers like in the Xray). Then we have logic that helps reject that that the Mike and the 73M might have, but how good that is.. (We have videos of QF-4's defeating 9M's with flare with no maneuver so probably not that well).

 

The problem is this means that dumping out a shit ton of chaff will have the same effect on a radar guided missile. It comes a bit skewy because maneuvers are needed too and even more complicated stuff that is outside of my area of expertise.

 

 

 

What does this mean? Well we have compromises we have to make for complexity sake, for processing cycles, for netcode. These can add up. I imagine this is partly why we see missiles lose 1.5 worth of Mach when they pull 30g for half a second, the maths is oversimplified for the AoA calculations. This is why we see missiles in level flight not travelling the expected amount of distance because of errors in the missile values. This is why we have missiles pulling 15g's off the rail against targets 30nmi's away. This is why we have the ability to defeat R27R's with a couple of chaff bundles.

 

But hey, what do I know? I'm just an armchair general right?