AIM-7's are awful post patch 2.5.4.30038

[Banzaiib]

I was pretty surprised at how bad they are.

 

 

Not sure how I can load a track on here when the track file limit is 5 mb. Almost any multiplayer track will be more than that.

[Eldur]

Looks like Vietnam era Sparrows (=they're not meant to track your STT radar reflections) to me now, haven't tried those myself yet though.

[Strikeeagle345]

I was pretty surprised at how bad they are.

 

 

Not sure how I can load a track on here when the track file limit is 5 mb. Almost any multiplayer track will be more than that.

 

Tomcat tracks don't work anyway. Would be a waste to upload one.

[Rlaxoxo]

Ye ED said something that they fixed how Aim-7 would behave like Ammram when fired.

I guess they made some changes ... sigh

[*Rage*]

Hard to see from your tacview recording but arent the AI doing perfect notches? Can you upload the tacview?

[Eldur]

Well, it should be hard to notch a PSTT lock in short BVR distances

[Banzaiib]

You're right about the notching of the enemy AI, and No, i can't upload the tacview, because the file is too large, Sorry!

 

It should be damned near impossible to notch inside 2 miles... I never lost lock, btw, the missile just went stupid... This is not even close to a realistic modeling of SARH missile guidance... unless it is, i never flew a real jet :)

Edited April 24, 2019 by Banzaiib

[nighthawk2174]

Yeah its the chaff resistances Banzaiib. Until ED does a proper chaff model (probs by 2030) you'll get this unless you use a missile mod. Currently, imho, chaff resistances especially for modern missiles are way to low. As in they eat chaff to readily. In theory the missile itself should be immune to the chaff but the tracking radar in the host jet isn't. As of right now though the chance a missile will eat chaff grows exponentially for every extra chaff bundle you drop and the time that this can impact the seeker is quite long as well. IRL the chaff bundle will almost instantaneously (like under a second) drop from the aircrafts speed to just around 0kts. Meaning that it will be filtered out by PD and also fall out of the tracking cone of the host ships radar very quickly.

[Oceandar]

Isnt it too close to fire it inside 2 miles ? I would switch to fox 2 in that condition. I also tested the Sparrow in the Hornet thou and all seem fine.

[nighthawk2174]

In a rear firing position that is defiantly not to close

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13ajPTlbdRao2ZVeI0bEqqGvA07Zspu6t/view?usp=sharing

[Sandman1330]

Oh man, are they ever... They just don't track. Even if I keep lock throughout, range 5-10 miles in trail, they don't even guide, just go stupid.

[Eldur]

I shot two of them ago, both hit... well the first one was just a tad over a mile head on, the other was in a turning fight roughly shot at his 4 o'clock high which made him turn away from me, but from even less than a mile. He tried to chaff, but it didn't help.

[Sandman1330]

I shot two of them ago, both hit... well the first one was just a tad over a mile head on, the other was in a turning fight roughly shot at his 4 o'clock high which made him turn away from me, but from even less than a mile. He tried to chaff, but it didn't help.

 

Yeah, after more testing they work pretty good up close, within 3-5 miles. However, this is supposed to be a BVR missile, I’d expect decent performance at 10 miles at least in a head-on situation.

 

Part of the problem may be that Jester seems to switch from P-STT to PD-STT while the missile is guiding, I think this trashes the missile. They also seem to be too sensitive to chaff.

[Blinde]

Don't really see any difference. Pretty useless over 5nm, under 3,5nm range it's way too lethal with 80% hit accuracy.

[captain_dalan]

I just shot one at an Su-24 from within 10nm and it hit. It was a bomber after all, but still.....i was bellow angels 10. I think i was around 600KIAS at the moment of launch. STT, 70-100 degrees aspect. I think he was notching me.

[nighthawk2174]

Don't really see any difference. Pretty useless over 5nm, under 3,5nm range it's way too lethal with 80% hit accuracy.

 

How so?

[Blinde]

How so?

Pretty much every time it just misses when fired outside 5nm range.

[nighthawk2174]

I was more curious about why you think their too lethal at short ranges. But about the AIM7's short range, even though I have no evidence, I am still dubious about the drag values on the AIM7. And on the numbers they used for the motor thrust and burn time as i've never seen the numbers they've used on any source.

Edited April 26, 2019 by nighthawk2174

[*Rage*]

I think ED have said the Aim7 aerodynamics are the most recent/accurately done within the sim.

 

The fact is that the AIM-7 made a new model according to the results of the simulation in the CFD software, and the R-27 is still the old one.

Over time, we will do it for R-27 too.

 

That is what I understood from the context of the conversation the above quote was taken from.

[Fri13]

IRL the chaff bundle will almost instantaneously (like under a second) drop from the aircrafts speed to just around 0kts. Meaning that it will be filtered out by PD and also fall out of the tracking cone of the host ships radar very quickly.

 

In IRL the chaff stays up for hours if not days and will block the radars seeing through it, and will show up as constant motion to all directions.

 

It is the way how the chaff will reflect the signal going various speeds and directions, even when the chaff would be just floating in 0 m/s wind downwards.

 

The speed the chaff gets out is just how quickly it gets distributed across the sky on large area, and you do not want to chaff anything as it will not just make enemy life harder, it will make your life harder.

 

You basically just ECM yourself as the enemy with chaff and for very long periods.

[Fri13]

I think ED have said the Aim7 aerodynamics are the most recent/accurately done within the sim.

 

 

Yes. Next they are doing AIM-120 family and then later maybe the R-27 family, as it clearly has very serious flaws in its performance (not just guidance, but in that too).