Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Longestpants

Look who's in the October issue...

Recommended Posts


That remembers me of something I've forgot to tell: i the June issue of a French mag about sims, Falklands 1982 mod got a very good paper (half a page). :good:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a bad review - complains about useless missiles like all other newbies though - needs to learn how to use them more like!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That took long enough.

 

I submitted that article about 4 months ago.

 

Probably my last Virtual Pilot column, as there is no grist for the mill. :sorry:

 

___EDIT___

 

Err, sorry, I've been flying it since the SF:P1 beta, so far from a n00b...

Edited by Spectre_USA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think the mid-generation AIM-9s are undermodeled. I just don't get much more performance from an AIM-9H for example than I do from an AIM-9B. And I've fired thousands of them over the years so its not an impression based on a couple of shots. So I can see where Spectre is coming from...I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit I thought the later Nam era missiles such as the AIM-9J would be much better - but for example out of 31 attempted launches in 1972 of the AIM-9J - only 4 scored kills - 23 missed and 4 stayed on the rail.

 

Yes there are various reasons - such as ripple firing/ combat stress and firing out of parameters (range/ pulling too many Gs etc) but I can see why TK has perhaps given the missile that performance - he does (claim) to put in a lot of research into these things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally I think the mid-generation AIM-9s are undermodeled. I just don't get much more performance from an AIM-9H for example than I do from an AIM-9B. And I've fired thousands of them over the years so its not an impression based on a couple of shots. So I can see where Spectre is coming from...I think.

 

Yup, you nailed it.

 

Also please note, that I submitted it before the patch came out, lo those many months ago. It has improved somewhat, but I rarely fly anything in WoI from the

1st 2 campaign eras, only the last, and a 2006 campaign I made for the newer, more modern era add-ons.

 

I also hate that, after delaying this 2 months, they hacked the end off, and dropped the hardware review I had on a tiny little controller. Published magazines

are such a pain in the ass. Will stick to internet reviews from now on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AIM-9J was little better than the AIM-9E, which was little better than the AIM-9B.

The USAF simply did not focus on the part that was most important the seeker/guidance systems.

At least in the J, they went with fins optimized for more maneuverability.

 

The AIM-9G and AIM-9H were only slightly less capable than the AIM-9L... but the big jump between the AIM-9H and AIM-9L was the seeker.

I have actually been fairly happy with AIM-9D/G/H performance.

I can tell the difference between using a B and a D... the D is much more likely to track a target that is maneuvering and allows you to pull more g while launching the missile.

The G and H likewise expand the allowable angle-off at launch and are therefore much more useful in a dogfight than the B or D.

Their main weakness compared to the AIM-9L against MiGs with no countermeasures is the lack of forward hemisphere attack.

 

Until WoI (unpatched, WoI intially broke all the missiles), I got really good kill ratios with the D, G, and H compared to the B.

Kills with the B pretty much require the target and firing aircraft to be flying almost straight ahead with a very narrow effective range (too far, run out of speed, too close, not armed).

Whereas the D allows both target and firing aircraft to pull a few g's, and the G/H allows expanded aquisition angles as well as more g-tolerance.

 

The AIM-9J on the otherhand, was largely an AIM-9E with more acceleration and bigger front fins... however, enchanced maneuverability and speed did no good without a sensitive/stable seeker head to take advantage of it...

 

But there is a reason the USAF did such a crappy job on developing the AIM-9... they put their money into the Sparrow and developed much better variants than the Navy...

So, that by the late 70s/early 80s, they were sharing each others improvements giving both services the best possible RHMs and IRMs.

I think existing combat results show that there have been no better missiles than US missiles within their class: AIM-7M and AIM-9M have not been beaten by any other missiles in their class (AIM-120 is a whole new class!). The AIM-7F and AIM-9L that preceeded them were certainly the best available at that time... though the British Skyflash was an AIM-7E with a seeker equal or better to the AIM-7M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..