AIM-9P5

[Cletust8]

Something wrong with the AIM-9P5. It has a tiny FOV and it seems to be rear aspect only. I have yet to have one hit.

[mattebubben]

Yea i have the same problems.

 

The area where it can actually lock something up is minuscule and as soon as you gain the lock you usually loose it and its very hard to time it right so you launch during that half a second to a second window where you have a tone.

 

The fact that the spot where the seeker looks at is not synced to the pipper does not help either since if you try to keep a target at the pipper you are unlikely to ever get a good tone.

 

I also had a bug with it where after i had re-armed i would simply be unable to fire it at all.

 

Have you tried with any of the other missiles to see if they have the same problem? only tried the Aim-9P5 myself.

 

But yea this is something i feel like it needs to be fixed since atm its very very hard to use the Aim-P5 against maneuvering targets.

 

ive had a few kills with it in MP (Mig-21Bis Vs F-5E server) but there are so many more kills i could have gotten if it was working properly =P.

[JNelson]

Something wrong with the AIM-9P5. It has a tiny FOV and it seems to be rear aspect only. I have yet to have one hit.

 

Hi, if you check the changelog the narrow fov is already noted. It is not rear aspect only it can hit from the front although the tone doesn't appear to change when it does. Hopefully this is fixed soon.

 

Also the flare resistance seems less than the aim-9m which I thought had the same seeker.

 

Edit: Forgot to say if you get a tone then hold the UNCAGE (until you fire) it will let the seeker track the target allowing you to maneuver before firing, and more importantly keep tone for long enough to fire.

[Patchwork]

Make sure you are pressing and holding the "Missile Uncage Switch" as soon as you hear a good tone. This will tell the missile to "keep eyes on this signal" and it will have a much larger tracking FOV and will be much closer to what you're used to.

 

Most people aren't pressing and holding the missile uncage switch, so the seeker is fixed to the boresight.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Patchwork
grammar, again...

[Cletust8]

Make sure you are pressing and holding the "Missile Uncage Switch" as soon as you hear a good tone. This will tell the missile to "keep eyes on this signal" and it will have a much larger tracking FOV and will be much closer to what you're used to.

 

Most people aren't pressing and holding the missile uncage switch, so the seeker is fixed to the boresight.

 

 

 

No I'm holding the uncage switch, it just doesnt lock (or at least change tone) from anything but the rear aspect.

[mattebubben]

Hi, if you check the changelog the narrow fov is already noted. It is not rear aspect only it can hit from the front although the tone doesn't appear to change when it does. Hopefully this is fixed soon.

 

Also the flare resistance seems less than the aim-9m which I thought had the same seeker.

 

Edit: Forgot to say if you get a tone then hold the UNCAGE (until you fire) it will let the seeker track the target allowing you to maneuver before firing, and more importantly keep tone for long enough to fire.

 

While the Aim-9P5 does not use the same seeker as the Aim-9M it has a seeker that is derived from the Aim-9M seeker (some modifications to make it cheaper to produce etc) but the seeker performance should be very similar and it uses the same techniques when it comes to flare resistance as the Aim-9M so it should be almost identical in that area.

(depending on what Aim-9M we have modeled in game)

 

But then again alot of missiles seem very flare hungry atm (that should not be)

[Sweep]

Thought it was a Lima seeker, no?

[JNelson]

Thought it was a Lima seeker, no?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but that is the AIM-9P4

[OldE24]

The AIM-9P is a simpler, less expensive Sidewinder, without many of the advanced electronics and seeker features of the AIM-9L and AIM-9M. There are several flavors of the AIM-9P, depending upon the needs of the receiving country and what the US is willing to let them have; they are all based on the AIM-9B/E/J series, and many are in fact rebuilds. The AIM-9P1 has a laser proximity fuze for increased reliability; the AIM-9P2 adds a reduced-smoke motor to that. The AIM-9P3 adds a more advanced warhead, improved guidance electronics, and faster-actuating control surfaces. The AIM-9P4 replaces the seeker with one based on (but not quite as advanced as) the AIM-9L/M. The AIM-9P5 adds IRCM resistance similar to that of the AIM-9M.

 

http://www.pmulcahy.com/aams/us_aams.htm

[IvanK]

Indeed very small FOV but its also harmonised to the top of the reticle. In MSL mode the pipper reticle indicates missile boresight corrected for wing flex.

 

 

If I uncage the AIM9 (RSHFT+M) and hold the button pressed the missile fire command isnt read. Seems that pressing and hold the cage button stops the missile fire command from being read ? Not sure if this is bug or a HOTAS scripting problem using CH stuff. Seems as long as one button is held depressed no other commands are read.

 

On Launch Left Missile drops down off the rail before acceleration. Right missile jumps up off the rail before accelerating.

 

These AIM9s just eat flares every time.... Instant Mission Intercept the Bear.

Edited July 23, 2016 by IvanK

[NaCH]

Indeed very small FOV but its also harmonised to the top of the reticle. In MSL mode the pipper reticle indicates missile boresight corrected for wing flex.

 

 

If I uncage the AIM9 (RSHFT+M) and hold the button pressed the missile fire command isnt read. Seems that pressing and hold the cage button stops the missile fire command from being read ? Not sure if this is bug or a HOTAS scripting problem using CH stuff. Seems as long as one button is held depressed no other commands are read.

 

On Launch Left Missile drops down off the rail before acceleration. Right missile jumps up off the rail before accelerating.

 

These AIM9s just eat flares every time.... Instant Mission Intercept the Bear.

 

If you guys can look at this video from the aggressor minute 3 34 second you will see the reflex going over F18 .. if you see the lock cone is really small and not in the middle of the gun sight.

 

[Mr.Pitt]

FOV will fix.

[cofcorpse]

Yep. We almost fixed in internal version.

[OxideMako]

Yep. We almost fixed in internal version.

 

Loving the communication, keep it up!:thumbup:

[GaryIKILLYOU]

If I uncage the AIM9 (RSHFT+M) and hold the button pressed the missile fire command isnt read. Seems that pressing and hold the cage button stops the missile fire command from being read ? Not sure if this is bug or a HOTAS scripting problem using CH stuff. Seems as long as one button is held depressed no other commands are read.

 

I am experiencing this as well with an X-52Pro, so I don't think it's due to CH scripting. Both with and without using the SST software I have this issue. It would be nice if the uncage button could be set as a toggle (not as realistic, but neither is not being able to launch b/c I'm holding down another button).

[BeastyBaiter]

I'm able to launch with the uncage button held. I'm using an X-55 with in game control assignments only.

[IASGATG]

I should point out that the rocket motor on the P5 is completely wrong too, along with the lift profile. Hence why it doesn't turn like the 9M.

Edited July 23, 2016 by IASGATG

[mattebubben]

Yea the Aim-9P (And the P5) seem to be badly modeled atm =P.

 

They cant turn at all.

 

And while they were no Aim-9Xs they were pretty decent for the time (especially the Aim-9P5 should be pretty good though still worse then a Aim-9L/M when it comes to manuverability) .

 

While with how they currently preform even a target doing a gentle 2-3G turn will evade the missile.

 

It seems to be have like a Aim-9B (or worse)

 

Compare it with the russian K-13M1 (Russian copy of the Aim-9J/P atleast body wise)

and it turns pretty well

(dont know how close to reality its FM is but it seems allot closer then what we have currently for the Aim-9P/P5)

Edited July 23, 2016 by mattebubben

[red_coreSix]

Yea the Aim-9P (And the P5) seem to be badly modeled atm =P.

 

They cant turn at all.

 

And while they were no Aim-9Xs they were pretty decent for the time (especially the Aim-9P5 should be pretty good though still worse then a Aim-9L/M when it comes to manuverability) .

 

While with how they currently preform even a target doing a gentle 2-3G turn will evade the missile.

 

It seems to be have like a Aim-9B (or worse)

 

Compare it with the russian K-13M1 (Russian copy of the Aim-9J/P atleast body wise)

and it turns pretty well

(dont know how close to reality its FM is but it seems allot closer then what we have currently for the Aim-9P/P5)

 

You shouldn't be able to evade any missile in-game with a 3G turn, I believe it has to do with the lagging in multiplayer. The K-13M1 is actually an improved version of the K-13M which in itself is already an improved K-13. It should perform better than the standard AIM-9P in-game (which is the P1?).

[WinterH]

K-13M1 should be roughly similar with AIM-9P series. Though, P5 will have significantly superiour seeker giving it all aspect capability.

 

Althought a R-60M should indeed be better at pulling off high g very close dogfight shots than AIM-9P, currently F-5's missiles really seem to significantly underperform right now.

[mattebubben]

You shouldn't be able to evade any missile in-game with a 3G turn, I believe it has to do with the lagging in multiplayer. The K-13M1 is actually an improved version of the K-13M which in itself is already an improved K-13. It should perform better than the standard AIM-9P in-game (which is the P1?).

 

Yes but the K-13M1 had copied the new Canard shape and steering assembly of the Aim-9J

(probably copied from a Aim-9J stolen from south korea)

 

Where as the K-13M used the canard shape of the Aim-9D series of missiles.

 

And why should it preform better then the Aim-9P?

 

The Aim-9P entered service in the late 1970s (around 1978.)

Where as the K-13M1 seems to have entered service around 1976.

 

The Aim-9P is an improvement of the Aim-9J and even the first Aim-9P should be a step up in terms of maneuverability (Due to more powerful steering servos and better guidance systems)

 

The Aim-9P and the K-13M1 should either be very close in performance (if the soviets improved on the design of the Aim-9J they acquired) or slightly worse then the Aim-9P if they did not.

 

Either way the Aim-9P (and especially the Aim-9P5 as it should be more maneuverable etc then the standard Aim-9P was)

should be much more capable then it is today.

 

And if you can find a source stating otherwise

(or that the K-13M1 should be better then the Aim-9P)

i would be more then happy to see it.

 

And also its not related to MP lagg since i have the same problem in SP (both when im the one launching and when im the one "evading")

 

And if we go back to the K-13.

 

The K-13 series are basically copies of the Aim-9 (nothing wrong with that)

With the K-13 (R-3) which was the first variant and in many ways just a prototype and was produced in small numbers being a direct copy of the Aim-9B

The K-13A (R-3S) being the first mass production variant and had some modification including simplifications to make it easier/cheaper to produces (some of those simplifications made it slightly less effective then the Aim-9B it was copied from)

 

The K-13M was a improvement of the series and copied many of the new features from the Aim-9D and Gs copied from examples that had been acquired from Vietnam (Most likely captured or found by North Vietnamese troops and given to Russia in exchange for military equipment)

 

And then the K-13M1 (last missile of the series) that used the lessons learned from the stolen Aim-9J from South Korea.

 

During the 60s and early 70s the Russians were generally playing catch up when it came to missile tech and it was not until the 80s with the R-73 that they got ahead on missile tech. (which did not last long as the west re-took the lead in the 90s with the Aim-120 and then with a series of new IR missiles in the early 2000s)

 

So there is nothing to really suggest that the K-13M1 would be superior to the Aim-9P in maneuverability.

Edited July 23, 2016 by mattebubben

[Schmidtfire]

I just had a look at the AIM-9P5 lua file.

Some interesting facts...

 

GAR-8

Max Mach: 2.2

Counter Countermeasures Probability Factor: 10

(Value = 0 - missile has absolutely resistance to countermeasures. Default = 1 (medium probability)

 

 

Aim-9P

Max Mach: 2.2

Counter Countermeasures Probability Factor: ?

 

 

Aim-9P5

Max Mach: 2.2 (!)

Counter Countermeasures Probability Factor: 10

 

 

AIM-9M

Max Mach: 2.7

Counter Countermeasures Probability Factor: 0.5

 

 

 

So, even with the limited FOV (and very limited front aspect capability right now) we are looking at a missile that fly at a maximum of 2.2 Mach and has over 10 times worse resistance to countermeasures than Aim-9M. I don't know if this is correct, but It feels like the Aim-9P should perform closer to the Aim-9M than Aim-9P or GAR-8.

[mattebubben]

yea this is very wrong.

 

And especially on the Flare rejection side.

 

Since the Aim-9P5 should be very close to the Aim-9M on that subject

 

(thats the entire reason behind the Aim-9P5 variant over the Aim-9P4 so start with)

 

I really hope they give the missile some attention (both the Aim-9P and the P5 actually as they both need some serious attention).

 

This is pretty much the same problem the mirage 2000 had when it came out.

 

Where they pretty much had to result to adding their own missile variant as the ED missiles (R.550 and R.530)

were outdated and were under performing very badly.

 

In either case i hope the F-5E gets improved Aim-9s

(both Aim-9P and Aim-9P5 as quickly as possible.)

And not just a fix in FOV as thats only a part of the problem.

(since sure will be nice to have that fix but that still wont make these missiles perform as they should after launch.)

[NaCH]

The problem of the missile performance are not the missile itself.. is the new network code that was pushed on the previous upgrade.

 

I look like when the target "warps" or moves it does not exist for the missile so it loose track. If you check on the past the missile did hit and to me with much accuracy specially BVR but now the WVR miss with not even flaring.

[IASGATG]

The problem of the missile performance are not the missile itself.. is the new network code that was pushed on the previous upgrade.

 

Just because one thing is at fault, doesn't mean both aren't. I assure you, the FM for the AIM-9P and P5 are off. :)

 

Schmidtfire - The Max speed stuff is old code that doesn't do anything any more when it has the AFM stuff written further below.