Please make AIM-7E

[shab249]

The M varient is from 1982 but when we want vietnam era fight with the phantom we have to use the much more powerful M. in that case MIG-21 will never win please add the E version it can be usefull for the upcoming F-14 and the F-4

It has less explosive charge

much less range

poor ECM resistance

And the kill probability was 15% (but i guess its because aggresive maneuvers from MIG 17/19)

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Slazi]

Post incomprehensibility demands clarification for further mutually beneficial discussion.

[shab249]

Post incomprehensibility demands clarification for further mutually beneficial discussion.

IDK but im sure that if they could copy the M or the AIM 120 they can copy that too

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[probad]

ill decipher it for you, op wants aim-7e so he can joust into ai f-4s without getting schwacked in the face because somehow it will be a magically crap missile that rolls a d6 for a hit.

 

nevermind the fact that the current aim-7m is already as slow as a mired pig and chaff hungry as a starving rooster and getting the jump on ai is as simple as not blaring your radar all over the air (hey just like irl)

the argument that mig-21, which if i may point out isn't exactly the f-13 that saw action in vietnam, can't win against an f-4 just doesn't hold water as an argument for implementation of a new missile.

 

i got nothing against more historical variants, i think the more comprehensive dcs is the better -- it's only the spirit of op's reasoning that i have issues with.

Edited January 15, 2017 by probad

[shab249]

ill decipher it for you, op wants aim-7e so he can joust into ai f-4s without getting schwacked in the face because somehow it will be a magically crap missile that rolls a d6 for a hit.

 

nevermind the fact that the current aim-7m is already as slow as a mired pig and chaff hungry as a starving rooster and getting the jump on ai is as simple as not blaring your radar all over the air (hey just like irl)

the argument that mig-21, which if i may point out isn't exactly the f-13 that saw action in vietnam, can't win against an f-4 just doesn't hold water as an argument for implementation of a new missile.

 

i got nothing against more historical variants, i think the more comprehensive dcs is the better -- it's only the spirit of op's reasoning that i have issues with.

 

Lets compare the range and ECM resistance of the current M and the E (in real life) in dcs ECM does nothing when you're locked

30km vs 70km range

30kg vs 40kg of explosive

And ****ing 15% chance to hit vs 68%

Those 15 YEARS (- +) made a diffrent

 

The old AIM-7E was not very reliable with non solid state electronics and sometimes will just drop the lock even without any countermeasures or maneuvers at all

 

The R3R of the mig 21 does that as well because of the poor technology back then it will just be fair for the E varient to be added

And really mig 21's couldn't shoot down F-4's? Dude please read more about that war the us did get more kills but not as they tought they will. They designed most of the F-4's without a gun because they trusted thr AIM-7 but... it was designed against bombers so it couldn't get any mig's in the F-4E they added internal gun because of the heavy losses

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[COMThing]

The biggest reason for that 15% chance to hit was the lack of training in A2A combat. The Air Force's solution was to add a gun, whereas the Navy decided to start a fighter school for air combat training. The Navy ended up with the better kill ratio despite not having a gun on their Phantoms.

 

Basically, statistics are only marginally useful because they don't tell us the situation or the factors needed, only the result.

[shab249]

The biggest reason for that 15% chance to hit was the lack of training in A2A combat. The Air Force's solution was to add a gun, whereas the Navy decided to start a fighter school for air combat training. The Navy ended up with the better kill ratio despite not having a gun on their Phantoms.

 

Basically, statistics are only marginally useful because they don't tell us the situation or the factors needed, only the result.

Actually in vietnam the air fore did x5 more kills with aim 7 then the navy 10 for the navy and 50 for thr airforce again only with aim 7

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[BeastyBaiter]

The AIM-7E fits well in DCS's core time period and was carried by several aircraft already in game. It should be added for that reason alone.

[COMThing]

Actually in vietnam the air fore did x5 more kills with aim 7 then the navy 10 for the navy and 50 for thr airforce again only with aim 7

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

Despite having more kills than the Navy, the Air Force's ratio is worse. The Air Force had a little over 3 A2A kills for every A2A loss whereas the Navy were close to 6 kills for every loss.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that there are too many variables. Technology isn't the only thing that changed in the 15 years between the -7E and -7M. You can't even really compare the 15% -7E to the 68% -7M because the results come from very different environments (Vietnam vs the Middle East).

 

The AIM-7E fits well in DCS's core time period and was carried by several aircraft already in game. It should be added for that reason alone.

This is the reason it should be added, not because it would balance the F-4 vs MiG-21 fight.
Edited January 17, 2017 by COMThing

[WinterH]

More versions the merrier, and 7E would be good to have. However, adding missiles with realistic performance so far seem to be a rather hairy issue, so it may also be argued that it is better to tune the existing ones. I'd be fine either way.

 

However, when one push for the AIM-7E from a position of making the AI F-4E fight easier when flying a MiG-21Bis, is one that is guaranteed to be challenged here.

 

That's really not the way to approach things. Also, we are talking about AI, and it is perfectly possible to defeat even much more advanced AI opponents flying the MiG.

[shab249]

Despite having more kills than the Navy, the Air Force's ratio is worse. The Air Force had a little over 3 A2A kills for every A2A loss whereas the Navy were close to 6 kills for every loss.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that there are too many variables. Technology isn't the only thing that changed in the 15 years between the -7E and -7M. You can't even really compare the 15% -7E to the 68% -7M because the results come from very different environments (Vietnam vs the Middle East).

 

This is the reason it should be added, not because it would balance the F-4 vs MiG-21 fight.

Not only technology changed that is true BUT still f-4's shoot a lot of them (and f-15's but they were pretty new back then) and the main enemy still was mig-21's (and 23's but most of them were 21's) so technology did her role and if you want to tell me that mig 17's was the main enemy in vietnam and its kind of true they didnt even had any RWR so that should increase the kill probability not make it 15%

 

Wikipedia: aim-7 page

Kill count summary

CategoryUSN USAF Combined

AN-2s 2 N/A 2

MiG-17s 5 8 13

MiG-19s N/A 4 4

MiG-21s 3 38 41

Total 10 50 60

 

Ill repeat myself

The M had better look down shoot down capability (that was nice in the days of mig 17's ah? Well they didnt had that before so 15%)

Dual thrust engine from 30km to 70km range yea thats more than double

Better ECM resistance (wasnt very critical back than)

And solid state electronics that made the missile MUCH more reliable

 

Pretty big change ah?

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Bacab]

I'm wondering how DCS will manage those old missiles that were not bad because of their performances but because they were not reliable (motor that won't ignite, radar seeker failure, proximity fuse failure...). So far DCS does not provide a way to simulate those random events on missile. Therefore I think the representation of those missiles in the DCS environment will be far from the reality.

[shab249]

I'm wondering how DCS will manage those old missiles that were not bad because of their performances but because they were not reliable (motor that won't ignite, radar seeker failure, proximity fuse failure...). So far DCS does not provide a way to simulate those random events on missile. Therefore I think the representation of those missiles in the DCS environment will be far from the reality.

Random failures does exist in dcs they can set pre writen probability and make it possible

Take a look at the mission planner in every jet when you are the pilot there is category for failures and their chance. It can be the engine, radar, electric bus and more

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Bacab]

Random failures does exist in dcs they can set pre writen probability and make it possible

Take a look at the mission planner in every jet when you are the pilot there is category for failures and their chance. It can be the engine, radar, electric bus and more

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

For a plane it's possible but I don't think it's possible for the weapon they carry.

[COMThing]

Not only technology changed that is true BUT still f-4's shoot a lot of them (and f-15's but they were pretty new back then) and the main enemy still was mig-21's (and 23's but most of them were 21's) so technology did her role and if you want to tell me that mig 17's was the main enemy in vietnam and its kind of true they didnt even had any RWR so that should increase the kill probability not make it 15%

 

Wikipedia: aim-7 page

Kill count summary

CategoryUSN USAF Combined

AN-2s 2 N/A 2

MiG-17s 5 8 13

MiG-19s N/A 4 4

MiG-21s 3 38 41

Total 10 50 60

 

Ill repeat myself

The M had better look down shoot down capability (that was nice in the days of mig 17's ah? Well they didnt had that before so 15%)

Dual thrust engine from 30km to 70km range yea thats more than double

Better ECM resistance (wasnt very critical back than)

And solid state electronics that made the missile MUCH more reliable

 

Pretty big change ah?

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

I'm not arguing that the -7E is good. I'm saying that you can't compare the statistics from completely different situations. You need consistency for a reliable comparison.

 

The -7E in Vietnam was affected by poor storage conditions in a high humidity environment, whereas the -7M didn't face such conditions.

The -7E entered service at a time when most Phantom crews didn't get proper A2A training and had transitioned from ground attack aircraft and even bombers.

 

Those are just a couple of examples.

 

I'm also not convinced the statistics you have presented are accurate, especially the idea that the -7M has a 70km range.