AIM-7 Performance

[IASGATG]

Which is about what it is in game.

 

As mentioned earlier, launching from 12000m at a target 25NM away at 15000m (to get a slight loft), then removing the target with a trigger so the missile goes ballistic, the missile travelled 39 NM before returning to 12000 m, at which point it was travelling at 1100 km/h

 

Within 70seconds?

[GGTharos]

You have two VERY important benchmarks - relative range (Vimpact = Vlaunch) and Raero (=4-5g maneuver left, and obviously speed < Vlaunch). This is all against non-maneuvering, co-altitude targets.

 

 

 

That the missile travels to some range on some lofted trajectory doesn't really mean anything since there's nothing to compare that to.

 

 

 

Which is about what it is in game.

 

As mentioned earlier, launching from 12000m at a target 25NM away at 15000m (to get a slight loft), then removing the target with a trigger so the missile goes ballistic, the missile travelled 39 NM before returning to 12000 m, at which point it was travelling at 1100 km/h

[HawkDCS]

The problem for me is I have missed multiple times on large non maneuvering targets. When you are closing at 1200Vc and within 5Mi at Angels 30 then fire and miss something is wrong.

 

Just for laughs I shot an AIM 7M at 5 NM and missed the Russian Awacs that wasn't maneuvering backed off to same range shot an Aim 9M and killed it first shot.

 

It is in no way performing as a MRM or BVR missile its acting like a Sidewinder and frankly its even worse right now.

 

I guess we wait until Spamram is out cause the 7s are just worthless.

 

This worries me about the F14 since thats all it can carry other then Aim 54.

Edited June 7, 2018 by HawkDCS

[Weta43]

This is all against non-maneuvering, co-altitude targets.

...

That the missile travels to some range on some lofted trajectory doesn't really mean anything since there's nothing to compare that to.

 

The figures I gave were for a missile flying to a co-altitude non-manoeuvring point in space.

I can't see that it makes any difference whether there happens to be a target at the end of that path or not except for the impact of the guidance system on the path taken.

 

A good guidance path should maximise the available energy at the end of the path & so increase the available range, so my number has to be a floor (it can get that far without efficient guidance).

 

The floor provided for co-altitude distance achieved to a non-manoeuvring target is roughly the number you gave.

 

Your required parameters were launched above 30000 ft (met), co-altitude point of impact (met), a 4-5g manoeuvre available at that point. This wasn't tested, but I believe a speed of 1100km/h will give you a brief 4 - 5 G turn.

 

The missile seems to have the kinematic ability to meet the expected Raero from sources other than the Ratheon brochure.

 

Whether the inefficient guidance against targets - or perhaps excessive induced drag during turns - allows this to produce reasonable results in the sim is another question.

[pr1malr8ge]

I believe the main issue is that fact that the current guidance is in the terminal phase from the moment the missile is fired and is reacting to every micro movement of the target. This explains the excessive G pulled immediately off the rail and continual G loading through it's flight path. It would also explain why Weta's tests allowed for the distance it did since it no longer is G-loaded.

[nighthawk2174]

I believe the main issue is that fact that the current guidance is in the terminal phase from the moment the missile is fired and is reacting to every micro movement of the target. This explains the excessive G pulled immediately off the rail and continual G loading through it's flight path. It would also explain why Weta's tests allowed for the distance it did since it no longer is G-loaded.

 

+1

[GGTharos]

No, be just performed some test against a trajectory that is not available. AIM7F dies not loft. 7M data is the same without loft.

 

Guidance is separate and won't affect the non maneuvering scenario much. But yes, the various safeguards that keep the missile from expending energy are missing. I've sent that specific info to Chizh as well, and he said he'll pass it to his weapon coder.

Edited June 5, 2018 by GGTharos

[blkspade]

I don't think we should use the DCS F-15C performance as a bench-mark. I think that the FC3 planes - their radars and missiles - probably over-perform.

 

The Super 530D - well I've only read that it did not perform well - I may be misinformed. As I said, I got a head-on kill with it the other night on 104th server - even though I had turned away from the target and was not painting it anymore. I thought maybe it had an infra-red seeker built in as well as the semi-active guidance, but that is not true, so I don't know what happened. Seemed strange to me, though.

 

This is a false assumption, because there is only 1 version of each missile and is in no way tied to the launch platform. The missile model is the same when referring to the AIM-7M if you fire it from the the hornet or eagle, only how the radar behaves is different. So on a topic of aerodynamic performance, the platform does not matter beyond the Eagle actually being able to reach M2.0 as a control.

[IASGATG]

Okay lets make this test as clear and simple as possible.

 

AIM-7F/M, at 30kft, at M1.2, vs 30kft M1.2, has an RAero of approximately 30nmi. For this to be considered successful RAero intercept, the missile needs to hit the target within 70seconds, and with a Mach number of approximately 1.2 to have the energy necessary to make an intercept turn.

 

 

Here we see the setup, slightly under 30nmi, with the launcher slightly under M1.2 (1.15).

 

 

On impact, the missile made the intercept within the 70 second timer (61 seconds), but was too slow (Mach 0.79)

 

 

Rewinding the track, we see that at the intercept velocity of M1.2, the target is still 5.8nmi from the target.

 

Overall this means that the FM is not representing the RAero performance.

[Mr_Burns]

So can we confirm from ED that it is a WIP issue and that it has been logged for some future update/development work so I can move on?!

[Mr_Burns]

You have to get out and push.

[HawkDCS]

You have to get out and push.

 

:lol:

 

I do hope ED takes a serious look at this. The F14 is going to be crazy handicapped if its limited to non BVR weapons other then AIM 54.

 

I would be fine if the AIM 7 had a few reliability issues programmed in but having it almost be as weak ranged as a sidewinder is disappointing.

[Fri13]

:lol:

 

I do hope ED takes a serious look at this. The F14 is going to be crazy handicapped if its limited to non BVR weapons other then AIM 54.

 

I would be fine if the AIM 7 had a few reliability issues programmed in but having it almost be as weak ranged as a sidewinder is disappointing.

 

I think so many is overstating the BVR missiles performance and capabilities.

 

How many AIM-54 has been launched in combat by US? Three times, all three failing to hit the non-maneuvering targets. Some claims that 2/3 of got engine problems (little odd) and 1/3 miss because target simply changed the heading once.

 

The same thing is with a AIM-120 that it ain't so great in BVR situations and so far being only for non-maneuvering (and fleeing) targets without even RWR or operational, not to mention non-existing ECM suite.

 

So very likely if we would get more and more realistic missile performances as well radar performances, we would see more and more with-visual-range combat where AIM-9 and R-73 are major players, and even those more in the situation where you need to get to optimal firing position and distance.

 

Meaning, F-14 wouldn't be handicapped but brought more to level where everyone else is as well playing.

[Belphe]

Has there been any official response/comment on this from ED?

[BlackLion213]

How many AIM-54 has been launched in combat by US? Three times, all three failing to hit the non-maneuvering targets. Some claims that 2/3 of got engine problems (little odd) and 1/3 miss because target simply changed the heading once.

 

The target that changed direction was a MiG-25 and the launch range was ~65 nm, can't hit a fleeing target at ranges like that.

 

True that the other 2 AIM-54s failed to light, the first one was mounted improperly by the ordies and the other simply had a very old engine (~20 years old).

 

-Nick

[red_coreSix]

I think so many is overstating the BVR missiles performance and capabilities.

 

How many AIM-54 has been launched in combat by US? Three times, all three failing to hit the non-maneuvering targets. Some claims that 2/3 of got engine problems (little odd) and 1/3 miss because target simply changed the heading once.

 

To add to what's been said already, I recall the batteries being maintained improperly resulting in the motors failing to ignite.

[Capn kamikaze]

If the F-14 can't carry AIM-120B at least if not the C, I'm not buying it. There's no reason to spend that much to be that handicapped against murderous Flankers in multiplayer servers.

 

Well get ready to get murdered, because the F-14 never had the AIM-120, it was tested on the F-14, but it was never approved for service, and I don't think that any F-14's other than the one/s that it was tested on were ever modified to fire it...

[PeaceSells]

If the F-14 can't carry AIM-120B at least if not the C, I'm not buying it. There's no reason to spend that much to be that handicapped against murderous Flankers in multiplayer servers.

 

Have you tried to evade the current AIM-54 in DCS yet? Last time I tried it was MUCH harder to evade than the AIM-120C...

[HawkDCS]

Just thought I would try and find some real footage. Seems like maybe the M is this bad and possibly the higher range comes from LOFT mode? In this video where an F18C kills a Mig 21 its head on and 1090Vc and seems RNE is somewhere around 5-7Nm head on with alot of closure.

 

This video shows quite a bit of info on M performance. He shoots under 3Nm. That being said earlier in the video you can see he's just within RNE at about 5-7Nm head on.

 

Edited June 8, 2018 by HawkDCS

[GGTharos]

He shoots not just at under 3nm but right at Rmin because (choose: disrespect for the MiG-21, VID requirement, yadda).

 

 

It doesn't tell you anything about the AIM-7 performance at all.

 

 

 

Just thought I would try and find some real footage. Seems like maybe the M is this bad and possibly the higher range comes from LOFT mode? In this video where an F18C kills a Mig 21 its head on and 1090Vc and seems RNE is somewhere around 5-7Nm head on with alot of closure.

 

This video shows quite a bit of info on M performance. He shoots under 3Nm. That being said earlier in the video you can see he's just within RNE at about 5-7Nm head on.

 

[Krippz]

Bump; this really needs some developer attention. The missile dynamics in DCS as a whole need a complete overhaul.

[Ironhand]

I was hoping someone looked at my track and provide feedback about what I said. Because in this thread it was stated that other missiles work the same as before, but I feel different. :)

Haven't dealt much with the AIM-7s myself but, watching your track, they seem to be on all-chaff diet. There isn't a chaff bundle out there that they don't like...

[Weta43]

& if the target has no chaff ?

[Ironhand]

& if the target has no chaff ?

In the one simulation I ran, the 2nd missile hit me. The first one was launched at 38km and ran out of energy after I maneuvered, the 2nd was launched from significantly closer and hit.

[oldcrusty]

I tried it couple of times. The most recent fight was against AI Mig 29A. I had him locked STT for the entire duration of the engagement. Mid altitudes, 900 kts V_c. I picked him up at 20nm, almost immediately got a launch cue. I fired 3 Sparrows at few sec. intervals. The Mig never had a chance to fire his 27s. He easily evaded 2 missiles, turned back into me (I was notching). The third missile blew him out of the sky. It did seem like it was taking too much time for the missiles to close on him... I don't know, might be worth testing.