Best Fox 2 missile

[cmbaviator]

hello Guys

 

I'd like to know what's the best FOX2 in terms of range, maneuvering, flare sensitivity  for the ECW server ie, JULI not accepted.

 

Does the 530 IR have the same Range as the EM variant and does the 530 IR have further heat signature than the sidewinder or matra I

 

thanks

[Harlikwin]

On 10/17/2022 at 8:24 AM, cmbaviator said:

hello Guys

 

I'd like to know what's the best FOX2 in terms of range, maneuvering, flare sensitivity  for the ECW server ie, JULI not accepted.

 

Does the 530 IR have the same Range as the EM variant and does the 530 IR have further heat signature than the sidewinder or matra I

 

thanks

Yeah the range is the same. And the seeker should be better than either the early sidewinder or 550.

 

[DSplayer]

I would say that the Magic I is the best non-JULI missile at the moment that you can mount onto the F1. It currently still has all aspect capability even though it shouldn't. The 9J comes 2nd since it turns pretty well and a lot better than the 9Ps.

[MysteriousHonza]

On 11/2/2022 at 8:51 PM, DSplayer said:

I would say that the Magic I is the best non-JULI missile at the moment that you can mount onto the F1. It currently still has all aspect capability even though it shouldn't. The 9J comes 2nd since it turns pretty well and a lot better than the 9Ps.

Its all aspect capabilities were fixed iirc, iam not able to achieve frontal hemisphere locks anymore. Its still best fox 2 for shorter ranges, i would take 9P for longer and 9J in between. WIth all 3, you basically exchange Gs - turning for range. Magic has worst range while pulling like mad while 9P has worst G pull at 16gs but superior engine and range (good for BNZ long shots i guess) and 9J is nice middle ground. Seeker wise - IRCCM, in files, it goes from 9J as worst to 9P as best. The coef. of 9J is 3.0, magic 2.0 and 9P sits at decent 1.0 where even flaring nonburning target can be hit by it, esp tomcat. R530IR is special in its own, technically it should be capable of locking targets in frontal hemisphere but ive never managed to do it even against AB mig-29. Even though it pulls "only" 16gs, its a lot due to how slow the missile is. Aka if you're in engine burn range, youre mostly dead if without flares. But its heavy and mainly, its cold range is absolutely abysmal at low altitudes where most fights are. 530EM is decent missile if you know how to use it, 530IR? I wouldnt really bother carrying it if youre not one of those who like to take absolute crap to fights and roleplay poor souls who had to use it in real life. 

Edited March 27, 2023 by MysteriousHonza

[Harlikwin]

Yeah I'd agree on the Magic1 but honestly its down to personal preference and the shots you end up taking.

Honestly I'm increasing convinced that the ED Aim9P is wrong in terms of G capability, since it looks like the modeled the Aim9P3 for this. And afaik this is still using the Aim-9J/N guidance section so I don't really see why it would all of a sudden pull less G's than the 9J. And while I have seen solid G numbers for the J, I haven't really seen much for the 9P1-3. 

At any rate Aerges still needs to model the Cage/Uncage button for the Aim9 series of missiles and the return to boresight mode for the Magic1 as well.

 

 

 

 

[MysteriousHonza]

19 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Yeah I'd agree on the Magic1 but honestly its down to personal preference and the shots you end up taking.

Honestly I'm increasing convinced that the ED Aim9P is wrong in terms of G capability, since it looks like the modeled the Aim9P3 for this. And afaik this is still using the Aim-9J/N guidance section so I don't really see why it would all of a sudden pull less G's than the 9J. And while I have seen solid G numbers for the J, I haven't really seen much for the 9P1-3. 

At any rate Aerges still needs to model the Cage/Uncage button for the Aim9 series of missiles and the return to boresight mode for the Magic1 as well.

 

 

 

 

Yea, same opinion on ED P winders. I even think P-P3 are kida same exept engine, arent they (seekers, servos, and while guidance units)?

[Harlikwin]

5 hours ago, MysteriousHonza said:

Yea, same opinion on ED P winders. I even think P-P3 are kida same exept engine, arent they (seekers, servos, and while guidance units)?

Not really, The early P/P1 used the Mk17 motor same as the J. The P2/3 used a reduced smoke SR-116HP-1 Thiokol motor. The main changes in the various marks of missile had to do with different fusing, different warhead composition and so forth, so more or less stuff that ED doesn't really model for missiles. Amusingly the notes I have claim the P series had improved maneuverability over the J. But the seeker/fin sections seem to be the same for all missiles afaik. 

[DSplayer]

3 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Not really, The early P/P1 used the Mk17 motor same as the J. The P2/3 used a reduced smoke SR-116HP-1 Thiokol motor. The main changes in the various marks of missile had to do with different fusing, different warhead composition and so forth, so more or less stuff that ED doesn't really model for missiles. Amusingly the notes I have claim the P series had improved maneuverability over the J. But the seeker/fin sections seem to be the same for all missiles afaik. 

The improved maneuverability can be down to how the gas system for the fins changed in between the J and P with the solid state stuff. A similar thing happened when the AIM-9H was introduced and compared to the AIM-9G, it had better pull due to the gas system being changed and a byproduct of that was increased maneuverability iirc.

[Zergburger]

11 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Not really, The early P/P1 used the Mk17 motor same as the J. The P2/3 used a reduced smoke SR-116HP-1 Thiokol motor. The main changes in the various marks of missile had to do with different fusing, different warhead composition and so forth, so more or less stuff that ED doesn't really model for missiles. Amusingly the notes I have claim the P series had improved maneuverability over the J. But the seeker/fin sections seem to be the same for all missiles afaik. 

 

8 hours ago, DSplayer said:

The improved maneuverability can be down to how the gas system for the fins changed in between the J and P with the solid state stuff. A similar thing happened when the AIM-9H was introduced and compared to the AIM-9G, it had better pull due to the gas system being changed and a byproduct of that was increased maneuverability iirc.

huh......
the more you know

[MysteriousHonza]

8 hours ago, DSplayer said:

The improved maneuverability can be down to how the gas system for the fins changed in between the J and P with the solid state stuff. A similar thing happened when the AIM-9H was introduced and compared to the AIM-9G, it had better pull due to the gas system being changed and a byproduct of that was increased maneuverability iirc.

The thing is, only "battery" got changed and more powerful power supply increased servo power. Iam not sure if same thing happend to P series as they are continuation of USAF aim-9 family while 9L/M is continuation of naval one.

[DSplayer]

1 hour ago, MysteriousHonza said:

The thing is, only "battery" got changed and more powerful power supply increased servo power. Iam not sure if same thing happend to P series as they are continuation of USAF aim-9 family while 9L/M is continuation of naval one.

The same thing might've happened to the P series since they basically took improvements from the AIM-9L/M and plopped it into the P and that might also be beneficial for reducing the amount of unique parts between the two SW series. Of course I can't be certain that happened tho.

[Harlikwin]

19 hours ago, DSplayer said:

The improved maneuverability can be down to how the gas system for the fins changed in between the J and P with the solid state stuff. A similar thing happened when the AIM-9H was introduced and compared to the AIM-9G, it had better pull due to the gas system being changed and a byproduct of that was increased maneuverability iirc.

I'm well aware of what changed between the 9G and H. But every servo figure I've seen suggests there were no changes like this between the 9J and the 9P. Also the fins remained the same between the 9J and 9P (even up to the much later 4/5 series). Its possible that there were some improvements like that though I just have seen 0 evidence of them. Also the USAF had a vested interest keeping the 9P viable for export in a downgraded state, so they wouldn't have used any "sekrit" tech from the 9L/M project. Though I suppose stronger actuators or more gas pressure wouldn't exactly be sekrit. 

9 hours ago, DSplayer said:

The same thing might've happened to the P series since they basically took improvements from the AIM-9L/M and plopped it into the P and that might also be beneficial for reducing the amount of unique parts between the two SW series. Of course I can't be certain that happened tho.

I don't think there is any evidence to suggest the tech base for the 9J/P was ever impacted by the 9L/M program until much much later with the 9P4 seeker section which even then was different in the sense it was peltier cooled and not gas cooled like the 9L/M. 

11 hours ago, MysteriousHonza said:

The thing is, only "battery" got changed and more powerful power supply increased servo power. Iam not sure if same thing happend to P series as they are continuation of USAF aim-9 family while 9L/M is continuation of naval one.

The 9G to H switch with the thermal battery meant the gas generator just had more gas available to drive the actuators, it wasn't actually "changed". It was just there was more gas pressure available since it wasn't driving the turbo alternator anymore which tapped off some of the gas. And the 9L/M were built off the 9H tech base. While the 9J was developed off the 9E tech base that diverged from the 9B very early on. 

Edited November 11, 2022 by Harlikwin

[Flappie]

On 11/8/2022 at 12:05 AM, MysteriousHonza said:

R530IR is special in its own, technically it should be capable of locking targets in frontal hemisphere but ive never managed to do it even against AB mig-29.

It's intended. ED devs said it was a limited-all-apect missile. Here's what it's capable of, now that it was fixed:

 

[DSplayer]

28 minutes ago, Flappie said:

It's intended. ED devs said it was a limited-all-apect missile. Here's what it's capable of, now that it was fixed:

 

Does that mean the missile IR system is going to receive an overhaul in order for this to happen or is this going to be changing the existing seeker sensitivity parameters?

[Flappie]

4 minutes ago, DSplayer said:

Does that mean the missile IR system is going to receive an overhaul in order for this to happen or is this going to be changing the existing seeker sensitivity parameters?

It's already implemented. You should already be able to shoot a plane with R530 when coming hot at his 2 o'clock.

[DSplayer]

17 minutes ago, Flappie said:

It's already implemented. You should already be able to shoot a plane with R530 when coming hot at his 2 o'clock.

Oh ok then. I would’ve thought that a more complicated IR system would’ve been required in order to make that happen.

[Harlikwin]

19 hours ago, Flappie said:

It's intended. ED devs said it was a limited-all-apect missile. Here's what it's capable of, now that it was fixed:

 

So speaking of the 530. Currently in game it basically manouvers with full G authority right off the rail. Thats wrong per the manuals. It only gets its full G authority after the engine burns out. Should I go ping Chiz about that or you want me to send it through you? 

Also any ETA on getting the uncage behavior for the 9J/9P/9Juli and the re-cage behavior fixed yet? 

18 hours ago, DSplayer said:

Does that mean the missile IR system is going to receive an overhaul in order for this to happen or is this going to be changing the existing seeker sensitivity parameters?

They need to rework the whole system to actually model how the early limited all aspect missiles actually worked. Currently its about all they can do to make it more all aspect. 

[Flappie]

22 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

So speaking of the 530. Currently in game it basically manouvers with full G authority right off the rail. Thats wrong per the manuals. It only gets its full G authority after the engine burns out. Should I go ping Chiz about that or you want me to send it through you?

Please go ahead and ping Chiz.

As for the AIM-9P/J issue, AERGES devs are working on it.

[Harlikwin]

12 hours ago, Flappie said:

Please go ahead and ping Chiz.

As for the AIM-9P/J issue, AERGES devs are working on it.

Good to know.

 

IDK if the ED API for missiles can actually deal with how the 530 works, but I'll let em know. 

[MysteriousHonza]

On 11/12/2022 at 5:03 PM, Harlikwin said:

So speaking of the 530. Currently in game it basically manouvers with full G authority right off the rail. Thats wrong per the manuals. It only gets its full G authority after the engine burns out. Should I go ping Chiz about that or you want me to send it through you? 

It gets full authority after booster is out, not sustain tho. It have full authority on sustain. It shouldn't be able to detonate until 4 secs after launch tho. Impact? Probably yes and deal some serious damage but not explode.

Edited November 25, 2022 by MysteriousHonza

[Harlikwin]

13 hours ago, MysteriousHonza said:

It gets full authority after booster is out, not sustain tho. It have full authority on sustain. It shouldn't be able to detonate until 4 secs after launch tho. Impact? Probably yes and deal some serious damage but not explode.

 

 

Yup. So it just depends if ED can actually code this correctly.

The .5 sec flight delay should be fine since its the same as sidewinder. 

The variable G authority is gonna be a problem, since we have no info on how much it has to start, and how it gains it. A simple guess might be like 3G to start and then progressively more till 2.5sec

Fusing delay. IDK this "should" be simple, but IDK if other missiles have it.

 

 

[IvanK]

Historical snippet R530K:

The 4.0 sec arming time was a safety thing. Previously the fuse arming was complete at 2.5sec. In a large number of Missile shoots the R530 would detonate right on the RF influence fuse arming, given it was a slow missile at 2.5 secs it was essential still right in front of you. This resulted on a few occasions in the firing aircraft getting damaged by the Frag right in front of it. A lot of work on the fuse was done  and the arming time pushed out to 4 sec with the aim of getting the R530 further away from the firer at fuse arming. It still was a precocious missile.

Edited November 25, 2022 by IvanK

[Harlikwin]

7 hours ago, IvanK said:

Historical snippet R530K:

The 4.0 sec arming time was a safety thing. Previously the fuse arming was complete at 2.5sec. In a large number of Missile shoots the R530 would detonate right on the RF influence fuse arming, given it was a slow missile at 2.5 secs it was essential still right in front of you. This resulted on a few occasions in the firing aircraft getting damaged by the Frag right in front of it. A lot of work on the fuse was done  and the arming time pushed out to 4 sec with the aim of getting the R530 further away from the firer at fuse arming. It still was a precocious missile.

 

Any historical snippets on how much G was available when it started manouvering and how it went from there till it got full G? Was that linear?

 

[IvanK]

No I went looking through my notes nothing specific there.

[DJBiscuit1818]

On 11/25/2022 at 1:29 PM, Harlikwin said:

The variable G authority is gonna be a problem, since we have no info on how much it has to start, and how it gains it. A simple guess might be like 3G to start and then progressively more till 2.5sec

Somewhat splitting hairs here, but the limit seemingly isn't based upon G, but rather control surface deflection. While the two are closely related, they aren't 1:1. At higher speeds, full deflection may not be required to hit limit G. Conversely, it's a slow missile, and even full deflection could theoretically be insufficient to reach limit G. (Given the massive wings, I find the latter somewhat unlikely, but the simulation of the missile will better answer that question than any of my guesswork can.)

I agree, trying to find the correct value is going to be difficult. A linear ramp from 0% at complete lockout and a linear ramp to 100% over 2.5s would be the simplest implementation I can think of, but that seems to contradict the document itself. If "The control surfaces are unlocked but full deflection is unavailable," that would seem to imply that some appreciable amount is available once the surfaces unlock. The simplest starting point in light of that would be a linear ramp from launch through the entire boost phase of the rocket motor (a total of 3s), locked out for the first 0.5s then immediately jumping to the ~16% a linear ramp would possess.

EDIT: Unable to find any information on the R530 itself, I did some digging on DTIC for more general information on missile guidance laws and autopilot parameters to try and figure out why this kind of limit would exist. From what I've found, there are two main reasons you would restrict maneuverability once the missile is clear of the launching aircraft with an acquired target:

1: aerodynamic stability. If you allow too much maneuverability at too low of a speed, a guidance algorithm may destabilize the missile if AoA is increased too far, and this property seems to be much more important on missiles with rear control surfaces and fixed fins towards the center/front. (A profile the R530 happens to fit)

2: kinematic considerations. Seen on examples like the later AIM-7 variants (F onwards), many missiles will restrict early performance to prevent over-leading a target and/or reduce the impact of evasive maneuvers/cranking. This is primarily a consideration for long-range missiles to help preserve energy for the missile to defeat evasive maneuvers in the endgame. Additionally, such implementations usually include opponent range as a factor in whatever algorithm reduces the commanded maneuvers. (Indeed, when launched at short range, this limitation is all but nonexistent, since the benefits of reducing early energy expenditure decrease sharply as the engagement range moves away from Rmax towards Rmin)

Given that the R530 is a short-range missile (with an IR variant that cannot provide range information to the guidance package), and that the allowable control deflection increases as the boost phase burns (and thus as the missile speed increases), I think it can reasonably be inferred that the restriction is based on aerodynamic stability considerations, rather than kinematic ones. As such, that is probably where our derivation/guessing of the guidance restrictions ought to begin.

Perhaps rather than scaling linearly, it scales with relation to speed of the missile? For example, we could look at minimum launch parameters for the missile, figure out how much control will induce instability, then shape the deflection ramp to ensure that the missile remains stable when launched at those parameters. Depending on how much information the matra computer onboard the F1 gives the missile, the lockout ramp could hypothetically vary based on launch parameters as well.

Regardless, this is the best starting point I can think of, given the lack of concrete documentation.

Edited November 26, 2022 by DJBiscuit1818
Adding of general information to serve as the basis of a more informed guess