Look who's in the October issue...

[Longestpants 1]

[Silverbolt 104]

wow

cool

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

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).

[MigBuster 2,884]

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

[+Spectre_USA 7]

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.

 

___EDIT___

 

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

Edited July 31, 2008 by Spectre_USA

[MigBuster 2,884]

So which missiles do you need help with in particular?

[column5 63]

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.

[MigBuster 2,884]

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.

[commander 0]

sounded very familiar, until i realised i already read it under the reviews page here at CA.

Again, great job

[+Spectre_USA 7]

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...

[+streakeagle 871]

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.

[+Crusader 2,101]

I second streakeagle on 95% of all that....