Jump to content

AIM-9P5

Cletust8

By Cletust8
in Bugs and Problems

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • ED Team
Chizh

Chizh

Posted
  • ED Team
Posted
Given the AIM-9-P5 doesn't track head on, there's something wrong.

There is not missile bug rather F-5E weapon system.

You can check AIM-9P5 on F-15C and compare with 9M. Both can lock target in head on position at same range.

Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

mattebubben

mattebubben

Posted
Posted (edited)
There is not missile bug rather F-5E weapon system.

You can check AIM-9P5 on F-15C and compare with 9M. Both can lock target in head on position at same range.

 

What Aim-9P variant is the Aim-9P based on?

 

Is it the Basic Aim-9P variant or one of the other rear aspect variants (P1,P2,P3)

 

Since some of the Aim-9P variants had different rocket engines / and control units so they have differing range / maneuverability.

 

And my biggest problem with the Aim-9P and P5 is not related to what angles you can get a lock at but rather missile performance and vulnerability to flares.

 

As they can hardly turn at all.

 

Sure the Aim-9P/P5 is no Aim-9X or even R-73.

 

But in the game it performs like a Aim-9B...

 

And while some of Seeker problems can be attributed to the F-5E the poor performance of the missile can not

since if it uses the Aim-9M seeker head something must be wrong since the Aim-9P5 will go for a flare when ever it is given the chance.

 

Pretty much every time it will go for a flare.

 

And that is certainly not right.

 

The fact is that missiles like the R-3S for example is currently much more powerfull then the Aim-9P5 is... and that missile is supposed to be a copy of the Aim-9B with possibly a worse seeker... Yet its as or more maneuverable then the Aim-9P5 is and the seeker is alot more resistant to flares...


Edited by mattebubben
Link to comment
Share on other sites
IASGATG

IASGATG

Posted
Posted
Th AIM-9P5 in the game has motor from 9P and seeker from 9M.

If we receive detailed data we'll correct, if there are something wrong.

 

Correct data.

 

In game at current:

 

5 second burn time at 5.5kg/s mass flow rate at 8000N of thrust. A bit of maths and physics tells us that this is a 27.5kg motor with an ISP of 148.

 

Real Life:

 

[ame]https://www.orbitalatk.com/defense-systems/missile-products/sidewinder/docs/AIM%209P%20Sidewinder%20Approved%20PAO%2075ABW-2015-0032%20092215.pdf[/ame]

 

Gives us a unit weight of 88lbs. Rule of thumb says 60-65% of that is fuel which gives us a propellent grain of 53lbs. But what, IASGATG, that's just your guess. You don't know what you're talking about, it could be anything!

 

Wrong, I know what I'm talking about.

 

https://nationalstocknumber.info/national-stock-number/1337-01-061-9508

 

US National Hazard's declaration - 53lbs or 24kg.

 

Now what about the thrust? Well HTPB as stated in the first link has a typical ISP of 240-260. Considering ED has sided with 260 for the 9M and 120, which is reasonable. The missile should have more kick for less weight.

 

Now the only thing we don't know is burn time. All the old school IR SRM's had a very short burn time, in the 2-3s category. So if we stick in the same vein, we'd see something that looks like this:

 

Burn time: 3 seconds

Mass Flow Rate: 8kg/s

Thrust: 20404N

 

Obviously as I said the burn time is purely a guess and could be up to the 5.5s of the 9M, although this is unlikely as the 9M has more fuel than the 9P. The difference in burn time is this - shorter = better close range performance, longer = longer range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrmlZ

GrmlZ

Posted
Posted

I tested the P and P-5 on both the F-5E and F-15C.

The Aim-9P and P-5 have problems, they have a much shorter range than the Atoll (all of them) and lose speed MUCH faster than an Atoll. Why would a Aim-9P/P-5 after rocket burnout in the same situation and speed lose speed and energy this much faster?

 

You can easily test this in the editor both on the F-15C and F-5E.

https://www.youtube.com/user/GrmlZGaming
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nerd1000

Nerd1000

Posted
Posted
And thats pretty much the only time you can get a kill with the Aim-9P5 atm.

 

The guns are more effective xD.

 

I really hope they fix it as soon as possible for the sake of the F-5E.

 

And especially since nobody can possibly argue that this is how the Aim-9P5 (Or the Aim-9P) should actually perform since they are very obviously performing alot worse then they should.

(In all areas from Range to turning performance to seeker performance/sensitivity to flares etc)

 

Atm i mainly use the Aim-9P5 as a Signal flare ^^

when it feels like firing atleast which is not a sure thing to start with.

Given the current issues it might make sense for MiG vs Tiger missions to restrict AAMs for the MiG-21 and the F-5 to R-3S and GAR-8 respectively.

 

It might make dogfights a bit more intersting too...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kartoffel

Kartoffel

Posted
Posted
Or we mod the AIM -9M onto the F5E

 

But that would be... that would be.....

 

UNREALISTIC!!!!!

War is easy and is just like riding a bike. Except the bike is on fire and the ground is on fire and you are on fire and you realise you are in hell :joystick:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chrinik

Chrinik

Posted
Posted

Something anecdotal about the AiM-9Ps flare resistance in the last couple paragraphs:

 

http://aviationweek.com/blog/we-didn-t-know-what-90-percent-switches-did

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

GCI: "Control to SEAD: Enemy SAM site 190 for 30, cleared to engage"

Striker: "Copy, say Altitude?"

GCI: "....Deck....it´s a SAM site..."

Striker: "Oh...."

Fighter: "Yeah, those pesky russian build, baloon based SAMs."

 

-Red-Lyfe

 

Best way to troll DCS community, make an F-16A, see how dedicated the fans really are :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • ED Team
Chizh

Chizh

Posted
  • ED Team
Posted
I tested the P and P-5 on both the F-5E and F-15C.

The Aim-9P and P-5 have problems, they have a much shorter range than the Atoll (all of them) and lose speed MUCH faster than an Atoll. Why would a Aim-9P/P-5 after rocket burnout in the same situation and speed lose speed and energy this much faster?

 

You can easily test this in the editor both on the F-15C and F-5E.

Please compare 9P with GAR-8 by ED.

I can't say anything about Atoll because it is Leatherneck implementation.

Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • ED Team
Chizh

Chizh

Posted
  • ED Team
Posted
Correct data.

 

In game at current:

 

5 second burn time at 5.5kg/s mass flow rate at 8000N of thrust. A bit of maths and physics tells us that this is a 27.5kg motor with an ISP of 148.

 

Real Life:

 

https://www.orbitalatk.com/defense-systems/missile-products/sidewinder/docs/AIM%209P%20Sidewinder%20Approved%20PAO%2075ABW-2015-0032%20092215.pdf

 

Gives us a unit weight of 88lbs. Rule of thumb says 60-65% of that is fuel which gives us a propellent grain of 53lbs. But what, IASGATG, that's just your guess. You don't know what you're talking about, it could be anything!

 

Wrong, I know what I'm talking about.

 

https://nationalstocknumber.info/national-stock-number/1337-01-061-9508

 

US National Hazard's declaration - 53lbs or 24kg.

 

Now what about the thrust? Well HTPB as stated in the first link has a typical ISP of 240-260. Considering ED has sided with 260 for the 9M and 120, which is reasonable. The missile should have more kick for less weight.

 

Now the only thing we don't know is burn time. All the old school IR SRM's had a very short burn time, in the 2-3s category. So if we stick in the same vein, we'd see something that looks like this:

 

Burn time: 3 seconds

Mass Flow Rate: 8kg/s

Thrust: 20404N

 

Obviously as I said the burn time is purely a guess and could be up to the 5.5s of the 9M, although this is unlikely as the 9M has more fuel than the 9P. The difference in burn time is this - shorter = better close range performance, longer = longer range.

Thanks for data. It looks reasonable.

The SR 116 motor is used on the all family of AIM-9P or 9P5 only?

By the way we strongly needed any type of AIM-5P range diagram.

Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу

Link to comment
Share on other sites
IASGATG

IASGATG

Posted
Posted
Thanks for data. It looks reasonable.

The SR 116 motor is used on the all family of AIM-9P or 9P5 only?

By the way we strongly needed any type of AIM-5P range diagram.

 

Very similar shape to 9L. 9M in game based off of 9L diagram, so the Cd curve will be fine. They're the same anyway. On Cl is different, didn't get the turn rate improvement the 9M and R73 got.

 

The motor SR116 motor was produced at the same time as the 9P was introduced so I assume the same motor used throughout. Just a seeker and ECCM improvements through the blocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • ED Team
Chizh

Chizh

Posted
  • ED Team
Posted
Very similar shape to 9L.

Is there are any official diagrams?

 

The motor SR116 motor was produced at the same time as the 9P was introduced so I assume the same motor used throughout. Just a seeker and ECCM improvements through the blocks.

Well. Thanks!

Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jugdriver

Jugdriver

Posted
Posted
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 still having this issue unfortunately even thought I assigned the missile release to a DX button inside DCS. I also tried it just from the keyboard and it did not work either. I think it is something the Belsimtek team needs to look into.

 

JD

AKA_MattE

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...