AIM-9P series in DCS

[MysteriousHonza]

Hello,
There are currently several problems with Aim-9P and P-5 in DCS, from FM (Gs) to its flare rejection (P5)
i would like to point at its CCM coeficient in LUA of P5. It sits at 1.0 which might be ok or might not, thats not the problem. Problem is, its same as P (which as far as i understand is either P-2 or P-3 in DCS - tho lacking smokeless engine).

But P5 introduced IRCCM circuit as first P model. Wouldnt it be in place to modify its CCM somewhere around 9M to achieve its IRCCM? As of now. P and P5 share same flare resist which is wrong. Or simply rename it to P-4 (first all aspect P model without IRCCM)
Additionally, Both Ps currently sits at 16G overload. Considering what they are based on - improved export variant of 9J or simply renamed J-1 in case of P (9J-2+ eventually used SR116 engine too). They should share its flight characteristics in that department. Which would be 22G overload instead of 16Gs. 
Considering, these missiles might end up on upcoming F-15E and F-4E module (P mainly in F-4s case), they deserve some necessary care. 

Good solution to all, would be bumping G load to 22, renaming current P-5 to P-4, P to P-2 or 3 and giving it its smokeless engine and possibly "reintroduce" P-5 with lowered CCM coeficient to "simulate" IRCCM circuits built into it. 

null

Edited April 6, 2023 by MysteriousHonza

[gnomechild]

Great research! I would love to see the 9Ps get an update / refresher pass to incorporate this

[Harlikwin]

Absolutely great work. 

 

[Harlikwin]

6 hours ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

To be fair all IR missiles in DCS need a rework in the way they guide and handle CM's. War Thunder has better IR missile physics than DCS at this point. 

They don't work through clouds for one... IDK on the rest.

 

[Маэстро]

On 4/7/2023 at 12:19 AM, MysteriousHonza said:

Hello,
There are currently several problems with Aim-9P and P-5 in DCS, from FM (Gs) to its flare rejection (P5)
i would like to point at its CCM coeficient in LUA of P5. It sits at 1.0 which might be ok or might not, thats not the problem. Problem is, its same as P (which as far as i understand is either P-2 or P-3 in DCS - tho lacking smokeless engine).

But P5 introduced IRCCM circuit as first P model. Wouldnt it be in place to modify its CCM somewhere around 9M to achieve its IRCCM? As of now. P and P5 share same flare resist which is wrong. Or simply rename it to P-4 (first all aspect P model without IRCCM)
Additionally, Both Ps currently sits at 16G overload. Considering what they are based on - improved export variant of 9J or simply renamed J-1 in case of P (9J-2+ eventually used SR116 engine too). They should share its flight characteristics in that department. Which would be 22G overload instead of 16Gs. 
Considering, these missiles might end up on upcoming F-15E and F-4E module (P mainly in F-4s case), they deserve some necessary care. 

Good solution to all, would be bumping G load to 22, renaming current P-5 to P-4, P to P-2 or 3 and giving it its smokeless engine and possibly "reintroduce" P-5 with lowered CCM coeficient to "simulate" IRCCM circuits built into it. 

Hello @MysteriousHonza,

Thank you for your interest in DCS weapons. Most of these changes were already made some time ago and just awaitng to be released. AIM-9 family missiles will have correct max g-load and motors. CCM was also readjsuted, P and P3 CCM was reduced a bit, P5 ccm_k is equal to 9L ccm_k now (not 9M bc it's a quite more advanced missile).

[MysteriousHonza]

3 hours ago, Маэстро said:

Hello @MysteriousHonza,

Thank you for your interest in DCS weapons. Most of these changes were already made some time ago and just awaitng to be released. AIM-9 family missiles will have correct max g-load and motors. CCM was also readjsuted, P and P3 CCM was reduced a bit, P5 ccm_k is equal to 9L ccm_k now (not 9M bc it's a quite more advanced missile).

Thanks for info and response i really appreciate it. Wouldn't it be better to worse 9L a bit or place P5 in the middle of L and M? Considering 9L lacked dedicated IRCCM? If not, its good improvement anyway.

Thank you

[Harlikwin]

8 hours ago, Маэстро said:

Hello @MysteriousHonza,

Thank you for your interest in DCS weapons. Most of these changes were already made some time ago and just awaitng to be released. AIM-9 family missiles will have correct max g-load and motors. CCM was also readjsuted, P and P3 CCM was reduced a bit, P5 ccm_k is equal to 9L ccm_k now (not 9M bc it's a quite more advanced missile).

Any word on when IR guided missiles will stop working through clouds? Thats a major realism problem for DCS. 

[MysteriousHonza]

On 4/18/2023 at 10:18 AM, Маэстро said:

Hello @MysteriousHonza,

Thank you for your interest in DCS weapons. Most of these changes were already made some time ago and just awaitng to be released. AIM-9 family missiles will have correct max g-load and motors. CCM was also readjsuted, P and P3 CCM was reduced a bit, P5 ccm_k is equal to 9L ccm_k now (not 9M bc it's a quite more advanced missile).

Is there any ETA for changes release? 

[Маэстро]

On 4/26/2023 at 9:26 PM, MysteriousHonza said:

Is there any ETA for changes release? 

Maybe June, sorry can't be more precise.

On 4/18/2023 at 8:43 PM, Harlikwin said:

Any word on when IR guided missiles will stop working through clouds? Thats a major realism problem for DCS. 

This major feature planned, but its awaiting for "clouds API" completion (a part of MT Graphics system). Again no exact dates.

[jaguara5]

Any news on that? And if i have understand it correctly, there will be 3 different versions in game,   P-3,  P-5 and a  P ?

Edited June 6, 2023 by jaguara5

[DSplayer]

13 hours ago, jaguara5 said:

Any news on that? And if i have understand it correctly, there will be 3 different versions in game,   P-3,  P-5 and a  P ?

 

I think the P-3 version he was previously referring to is what we have now as the AIM-9P since our AIM-9P is rear aspect only much like the versions of the 9P prior to the P4.

[MysteriousHonza]

On 6/7/2023 at 11:17 AM, DSplayer said:

I think the P-3 version he was previously referring to is what we have now as the AIM-9P since our AIM-9P is rear aspect only much like the versions of the 9P prior to the P4.

We do have P-3 even engine wise. 
I cant comment about power or burn time of engine but what is known that it was longer and more powerful. What is wrong is P-3 generating smoke, it used reduced smoke engine. 
If i understand it correctly, we might get 9P - essentially 9J and then updated P-3 and P-5. Sadly lacking P-4 without IRCCM capabilities of P-5. 

[MysteriousHonza]

On 4/28/2023 at 1:36 PM, Маэстро said:

Maybe June, sorry can't be more precise.

Sorry but can we get the change already? What exactly takes MONTHS to release when its supposedly done already?

Edited July 24, 2023 by MysteriousHonza

[Маэстро]

On 7/24/2023 at 8:19 PM, MysteriousHonza said:

Sorry but can we get the change already? What exactly takes MONTHS to release when its supposedly done already?

 

Unfortunately, there were some source code conflicts which prevent including aim-9 changes into public version. All changes included into forthcoming 2.9 now. Sorry for long release.

[Tango3B]

Great news! Really looking forward to these changes…

[MysteriousHonza]

On 10/2/2023 at 10:27 AM, Маэстро said:

Unfortunately, there were some source code conflicts which prevent including aim-9 changes into public version. All changes included into forthcoming 2.9 now. Sorry for long release.

Thank you, can i ask for a bit more info? Will we get OG Aim-9P (smoke), then P2/3 (smokeless) and P-5 or P just becomes P2/3 with reduced smoke engine. 
Then even if a bit off topic, its still kinda close to aim-9s.

There is huge issue with R3S and R13s and R-60 from magnitude (mig21). R3S is pulling 5-6 Gs more than it should (16Gs instead of 10-11), flies shorter and its IRCCM is 15 times better than Aim-9Bs (0,66 vs 10,0!! 15 times better with pretty much same seeker design), it should be same or atleast similar. Certainly should pull less and be multiple times worse against flares. Its CCM is currently BETTER than 9L(0,75), 9JULI (0,75 - should be better than 9L =>irccm head from german 9Li program) and close to 9M/R73 or Magic IIs 0.5 IRCCM, same goes for R13M, M1 and base model R-60 (0,66).
R13s i cant find info but considering they should be copies / inspired by Aim-9D and Aim-9J/P, they should pull similar Gs due to aerodynamics - 9D/G/H were limited by frontal fin design, even stronger servos in H couldnt help it and missile pulled 18Gs max - R13M should be 18 instead of 22 and 13M1 gets same design as 22G J/P sidewinder. Cant comment on these much as i dont know how much stronger servos and different frontal fins changed 9Js pull from 9Es as its 2 things combined unlike on 9G/H where servos did nothing but when they added double delta frontal fins on H, they pushed its envelope over 30Gs (9L development program - it was made on 9H body, servos, engine). 
So R13M1 could be more similar to 9J 20-25Gs, its doing 35Gs now. 
All these missiles can track in frontal hemisphere too. 
Again cant comment on R13M1 and R60 but R3S and R13M certainly shouldnt do that. R3S is almost all aspect in that regard. 

My question is, can we expect these to be changed with sidewinders, are they worked on or we wont see them changed ever? 
Thank you. 
Adding video of R13 and R3S ignoring flares and tracking into frontal aspect - R3S (R3S should eat them from side - it shouldnt track from side at all, it was limited to around 30 deg left/right as these old seekers had to see internal parts of engine nozzles they guided on)

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by MysteriousHonza

[Harlikwin]

Guess we have to wait till 2.9 to see if anything actually got fixed.

But in general various missile parameters are wrong, and it looks like seeker behavior for a few of them is really broken. R3S should be similar to the 9B at least in terms of seeker performance. They did improve the gas generator it used a slightly better motor though etc. But the seeker was literally plug-n-play with 9B missiles.

Also all missiles still track through clouds. Which of course they should not.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Harlikwin

[2alpha-down0]

On 10/4/2023 at 5:11 PM, MysteriousHonza said:

Thank you, can i ask for a bit more info? Will we get OG Aim-9P (smoke), then P2/3 (smokeless) and P-5 or P just becomes P2/3 with reduced smoke engine. 
Then even if a bit off topic, its still kinda close to aim-9s.

There is huge issue with R3S and R13s and R-60 from magnitude (mig21). R3S is pulling 5-6 Gs more than it should (16Gs instead of 10-11), flies shorter and its IRCCM is 15 times better than Aim-9Bs (0,66 vs 10,0!! 15 times better with pretty much same seeker design), it should be same or atleast similar. Certainly should pull less and be multiple times worse against flares. Its CCM is currently BETTER than 9L(0,75), 9JULI (0,75 - should be better than 9L =>irccm head from german 9Li program) and close to 9M/R73 or Magic IIs 0.5 IRCCM, same goes for R13M, M1 and base model R-60 (0,66).
R13s i cant find info but considering they should be copies / inspired by Aim-9D and Aim-9J/P, they should pull similar Gs due to aerodynamics - 9D/G/H were limited by frontal fin design, even stronger servos in H couldnt help it and missile pulled 18Gs max - R13M should be 18 instead of 22 and 13M1 gets same design as 22G J/P sidewinder. Cant comment on these much as i dont know how much stronger servos and different frontal fins changed 9Js pull from 9Es as its 2 things combined unlike on 9G/H where servos did nothing but when they added double delta frontal fins on H, they pushed its envelope over 30Gs (9L development program - it was made on 9H body, servos, engine). 
So R13M1 could be more similar to 9J 20-25Gs, its doing 35Gs now. 
All these missiles can track in frontal hemisphere too. 
Again cant comment on R13M1 and R60 but R3S and R13M certainly shouldnt do that. R3S is almost all aspect in that regard. 

My question is, can we expect these to be changed with sidewinders, are they worked on or we wont see them changed ever? 
Thank you. 
Adding video of R13 and R3S ignoring flares and tracking into frontal aspect - R3S (R3S should eat them from side - it shouldnt track from side at all, it was limited to around 30 deg left/right as these old seekers had to see internal parts of engine nozzles they guided on)

 

 

Nice finds, but this probably needs to be a new bug report thread in this sub-forum in order for ED to acknowledge it.  I hope they do so.

[Tango3B]

On 10/4/2023 at 11:11 PM, MysteriousHonza said:

Thank you, can i ask for a bit more info? Will we get OG Aim-9P (smoke), then P2/3 (smokeless) and P-5 or P just becomes P2/3 with reduced smoke engine. 
Then even if a bit off topic, its still kinda close to aim-9s.

There is huge issue with R3S and R13s and R-60 from magnitude (mig21). R3S is pulling 5-6 Gs more than it should (16Gs instead of 10-11), flies shorter and its IRCCM is 15 times better than Aim-9Bs (0,66 vs 10,0!! 15 times better with pretty much same seeker design), it should be same or atleast similar. Certainly should pull less and be multiple times worse against flares. Its CCM is currently BETTER than 9L(0,75), 9JULI (0,75 - should be better than 9L =>irccm head from german 9Li program) and close to 9M/R73 or Magic IIs 0.5 IRCCM, same goes for R13M, M1 and base model R-60 (0,66).
R13s i cant find info but considering they should be copies / inspired by Aim-9D and Aim-9J/P, they should pull similar Gs due to aerodynamics - 9D/G/H were limited by frontal fin design, even stronger servos in H couldnt help it and missile pulled 18Gs max - R13M should be 18 instead of 22 and 13M1 gets same design as 22G J/P sidewinder. Cant comment on these much as i dont know how much stronger servos and different frontal fins changed 9Js pull from 9Es as its 2 things combined unlike on 9G/H where servos did nothing but when they added double delta frontal fins on H, they pushed its envelope over 30Gs (9L development program - it was made on 9H body, servos, engine). 
So R13M1 could be more similar to 9J 20-25Gs, its doing 35Gs now. 
All these missiles can track in frontal hemisphere too. 
Again cant comment on R13M1 and R60 but R3S and R13M certainly shouldnt do that. R3S is almost all aspect in that regard. 

My question is, can we expect these to be changed with sidewinders, are they worked on or we wont see them changed ever? 
Thank you. 
Adding video of R13 and R3S ignoring flares and tracking into frontal aspect - R3S (R3S should eat them from side - it shouldnt track from side at all, it was limited to around 30 deg left/right as these old seekers had to see internal parts of engine nozzles they guided on)

 

 

Oh, wow. I did not know that. Yeah, by the look of it this definitely warrants a seperate bug thread in this subforum so I kindly ask you to file a bug report for the R-3/R-13 missile family based upon your findings so that this gets ED‘s attention and can be looked at. Thank you.

[Маэстро]

On 10/5/2023 at 1:11 AM, MysteriousHonza said:

Thank you, can i ask for a bit more info? Will we get OG Aim-9P (smoke), then P2/3 (smokeless) and P-5 or P just becomes P2/3 with reduced smoke engine. 
Then even if a bit off topic, its still kinda close to aim-9s.

There is huge issue with R3S and R13s and R-60 from magnitude (mig21). R3S is pulling 5-6 Gs more than it should (16Gs instead of 10-11), flies shorter and its IRCCM is 15 times better than Aim-9Bs (0,66 vs 10,0!! 15 times better with pretty much same seeker design), it should be same or atleast similar. Certainly should pull less and be multiple times worse against flares. Its CCM is currently BETTER than 9L(0,75), 9JULI (0,75 - should be better than 9L =>irccm head from german 9Li program) and close to 9M/R73 or Magic IIs 0.5 IRCCM, same goes for R13M, M1 and base model R-60 (0,66).
R13s i cant find info but considering they should be copies / inspired by Aim-9D and Aim-9J/P, they should pull similar Gs due to aerodynamics - 9D/G/H were limited by frontal fin design, even stronger servos in H couldnt help it and missile pulled 18Gs max - R13M should be 18 instead of 22 and 13M1 gets same design as 22G J/P sidewinder. Cant comment on these much as i dont know how much stronger servos and different frontal fins changed 9Js pull from 9Es as its 2 things combined unlike on 9G/H where servos did nothing but when they added double delta frontal fins on H, they pushed its envelope over 30Gs (9L development program - it was made on 9H body, servos, engine). 
So R13M1 could be more similar to 9J 20-25Gs, its doing 35Gs now. 
All these missiles can track in frontal hemisphere too. 
Again cant comment on R13M1 and R60 but R3S and R13M certainly shouldnt do that. R3S is almost all aspect in that regard. 

My question is, can we expect these to be changed with sidewinders, are they worked on or we wont see them changed ever? 
Thank you. 
Adding video of R13 and R3S ignoring flares and tracking into frontal aspect - R3S (R3S should eat them from side - it shouldnt track from side at all, it was limited to around 30 deg left/right as these old seekers had to see internal parts of engine nozzles they guided on)

 

 

In 2.9 MiG-21 original missiles were replaced with ours, so many of problems you have described should be fixed. Rb24/J and Rb74 for AJS-37 were also replaced.

[MysteriousHonza]

11 minutes ago, Маэстро said:

In 2.9 MiG-21 original missiles were replaced with ours, so many of problems you have described should be fixed. Rb24/J and Rb74 for AJS-37 were also replaced.

2.9 seems to be absolutely based patch. Cant wait only because of these changes and i suppose its only a small part of it 

[Tango3B]

1 hour ago, Маэстро said:

In 2.9 MiG-21 original missiles were replaced with ours, so many of problems you have described should be fixed. Rb24/J and Rb74 for AJS-37 were also replaced.

Excellent. This is just perfect. You guys must have been quite busy behind the scenes with 2.9. Anyway, DCS Cold War needed this, so thank you for all these changes. 

[Маэстро]

You are welcome guys.
 

On 10/5/2023 at 1:11 AM, MysteriousHonza said:

Thank you, can i ask for a bit more info? Will we get OG Aim-9P (smoke), then P2/3 (smokeless) and P-5 or P just becomes P2/3 with reduced smoke engine. 

Yes, P3 is also added. There are 3 "p" versions now: P3 and P5 with reduced smoke motor, and original P with smoky one.

[MysteriousHonza]

On 10/6/2023 at 4:13 PM, Маэстро said:

You are welcome guys.
 

Yes, P3 is also added. There are 3 "p" versions now: P3 and P5 with reduced smoke motor, and original P with smoky one.

Just to point out, we cant equip P-3 on F-5E, F1, F-15E, neither for AI F-4E for examaple, its like missile is not in the game. Only plane where i found it is Viggen as RB24J. All planes able to equip 9P should be able to equip whole 9P family, including 9Js. All USAF jets should be able to. Even F5E.

Edited October 19, 2023 by MysteriousHonza

[Harlikwin]

15 minutes ago, MysteriousHonza said:

Just to point out, we cant equip P-3 on F-5E, F1, F-15E, neither for AI F-4E for examaple, its like missile is not in the game. Only plane where i found it is Viggen as RB24J. All planes able to equip 9P should be able to equip whole 9P family, including 9Js. All USAF jets should be able to. Even F5E.

 

Yup, navy vs AF sidewinders tho. Also rails were sometimes not 100% compatible, i.e. the Aim-9G rails on British harriers had to be modified with a "file" to fit Aim9L during the falklands war as an example. 

Edited October 19, 2023 by Harlikwin