S. Low Posted October 18, 2019 Posted October 18, 2019 Thread link - https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=252602 Hi, I tested HB AIM7M performance and compared it to ED AIM7F on F15C and AIM7MH on F18 with a simple test. I set up a single AI fighter, random from SU27, SU33, Mig29, F14, F18 or F15, fly at M1.0 at 10000 feet. The AI fighter was set to CAP mission, evade threat. I set up my own aircraft, 11NM head to head, at M1.0 and at 10000 feet to the AI fighter. It is an F14B with 4xAIM7M or an F15C with 4xAIM7F or an F/A18C with 4xAIM7MH (loft disabled) I maintain air speed and altitude, STT the target, and launch one AIM7 at 9NM, repeat 10 times. The result is: HB F14B AIM7M in normal mode (ACM cover unflipped): 1/10 hit. Hit rate = 10% P-STT(PAL) HB F14B AIM7M in ACM mode (ACM cover flipped): 0/10 hit. Hit rate = 0% P-STT(PAL) ED F15C AIM7F: 8/10 hit, Hit rate = 80% ED F/A18C AIM7MH (no loft): 9/10 hit, hit rate = 90% After launch, I kept lower than the target and maintained lock for the entire time. I wonder why HB AIM7M perform so differently compared to ED AIM7F/MH? I mean no offense just wish to know 1) which one is more reasonable. 2) can we get access to ED ones on F14B just in case when we need them. For example in competitive PVP environment. Combat stats don't say all about the missile itself, as conditions are often very different from one launch to another, including human mistakes. I thought that Tacview files would help make sense of what has been written here. So I tried two different things. Creating conditions similar as the OP's, I STT locked on an AI F-15C set as "excellent" and "evade fire" from the F-14B's RIO seat, while in pulse search mode (at Angels 10 for both planes, ground clutter isn't the problem but beaming is, that's why I avoided using PD search). ACM cover was unflipped. So: - Case #1: 5 times, I shot one AIM-7M from the RIO's seat at 9 nm. - Case #2: 5 times, I shot one AIM-7M from the RIO's seat at 9 nm and then let the AI F-15C maneuver to evade before firing a second AIM-7M from the pilot's seat. Case #1: I fired 5 times 1 missile and scored 0 hit. Case #2: I fired 5 times 2 missiles and scored 4 hits, 3 kills. Interestingly, in case #2, 2 of the hits were scored by the first missile I fired, and in one case the second one also went on target. 1 of the hits (and kills) was scored by the second missile alone. Attached archives : as a matter of fact, 01 contains case #1 files while 02 contains case #2 files. [Edit] Corrected a mistake about hit counts I made another statistically irrelevant test with the Hornet, same conditions as above. Five times I shot one AIM-7M, scoring 5 hits and 5 kills. Tacview files in the attached archive. So doing tests on the AIM-7 I've discovered an egregious difference between the sensitivity to chaff on this module compared to the F-15C. It appears ED's implementation of AIM-7F guidance is leagues ahead of the implementation in use with the F-14's AIM-7M in terms of chaff and notch resistance. I know guidance is out of your hands, but I can't help but wonder if there's something going on with the AWG-9 or PAL mode because the difference is rather extreme. Setup: Altitude 15000 ft, 400 knots on both jets, head on aspect, 10 miles separation against a MiG-23MLA Excellent AI in the mission editor, NTTR standard day. Diving to the deck while firing to maintain look-up all the way. AIM-7M's, fired in sets of 4 at 10 miles with the F-14 in PAL (P-STT). 33 out of 40 missiles were chaffed. Target was never less than 3000 feet above shooter, missiles even got chaffed on head-on aspect. Lock was never broken. None of the missiles ever reacquired. AIM-7M's, fired in sets of 4 at 10 miles with the F-14 in PD-STT, Jester auto-switch to P-STT turned off). 35 out of 40 missiles were chaffed. However, 2 of the chaffed missiles reacquired a couple seconds later. Lock was maintained all the way in look-up. If the target dipped below 3-5 degrees look-up while notching, the lock broke as expected. These results were not counted in the total. AIM-7F's, fired in sets of 4 at 10 miles with the F-15 in STT medium PRF. 0 out of 40 missiles were chaffed. Including 12 shots in look-down with a target passing through the notch (flashing lock indicating radar memory mode). Missiles reacquired immediately when the target left the notch. One missile even scored a look-down kill after a 2 second notch. Every single missile tracked until impact or kinematically defeated. AIM-7M's, fired in sets of 4 at 10 miles with the F-15 in STT medium PRF. 0 out of 40 missiles were chaffed. 12 shots in look-down also did not get chaffed, despite the target manoeuvring into the notch for a second or two, guidance was maintained. Five of these even ended up directly hitting the target. The reason I've also used the AIM-7F in these tests is because it does not exhibit the same loft profile as the M/MH outside of 3 miles and therefore has a higher similarity to the modeling used in the F-14. The AIM-7F should also be more vulnerable to chaff than the later models. I'd understand if your hands are tied but I felt it wouldn't hurt to make another post about this to really verify whether or not this is something to do with the module itself. Or at least see if the current AIM-7F guidance could be ported to the F-14 as it begs the question why the missiles for this module are so mindbogglingly much worse than their counterparts. As it stands the Tomcat's Sparrow guidance is vulnerable to chaff to the point of uselessness.
Recommended Posts