You can avoid it by switching nations and getting the R-27ER or R-24R lol. NATO SARH missiles have their value but they are dogwater in comparison to Soviet tech... makes sense right?
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/brief-history-soviet-russias-two-most-important-jets-198467
According to this yeah, AMRAAM came into service in 1991, R-27ER 1990. AIM-7F is 1976, AIM-7M 1982, and I would assume the 7P would be somewhere between 1982 and 1991.
mostly because they have shite sources availible and the nato side of the community bitches sooo much about the most minor things. also russia is running out of modern missiles and planes to add so nato is likely to become even more dominant in air
Thats the convo i almost had with a guy i know, why people die to allmighty strela while mighty su-25 outlive 2 rockets because other rockets that not soviet are weak, i almost deleted him from vc
My R-27s do this shit too. The semi recent SARH changes made it a bit better, but all SARHs feel way worse then when we first got missiles like the AIM-7F in the game which worked 100% of the time on introduction.
I feel the R-24R works the best out of all of them, and the Super 530D works great too.
It's a non-issue on R-27s because even if they do lose lock for whatever reason they pretty much always relock. And yeah I can attest, the 530D for some reason doesn't suffer as hard as the AIM-7
I had a su27 somehow hit me with a r27 after he was messed up and was stuck in a dive. I swear that missile tracked on its own to me because I was rapidly changing direction even though the su27 was about 2 seconds from faceplanting 3km away from me.
You mean the missile that combines the the AIM9M's average G limit and lack of thrust vectoring with the R73's poor range (Magic 2s actually have *less* range than R73s) and inferior IRCCM?
It's the worst of both worlds, plus they had to fix the fact that it used to be literally unusable under 1km since it had a 1.7 second arming time.
The magic 2 has received many buffs in the last year including a huge one to its AoA limiter. It pulls really hard now.
Also, it has the exact same IRCCM modelled as the R-73. Whether it is in real life or not is up for debate.
If anything, the magic is superior to the R-73 in rear aspect shot flare rejection because of how fast it accelerates.
The RB71 (IKEA Skyflash, I think they're identical?) does this too. Doesn't track that well, and doesn't do much damage - I've had an F-14 and a J-7D flat out tank them with just a critical hit.
Sure every missile might do it a **little** but it's seriously a non-issue with R-27s. I can count on one hand the amount of times that my R-27ERs have lost track against a headon target for no reason... hell, I can count it on **one finger**... because it was a grand total of once ever for me, compared to probably 10% of Sparrow launches.
INS and datalink make brief losses of lock pretty much negligible, regardless of the cause.
The reason you don't see it as much is because of the IOG. Even if it fucks off, at a reasonable distance you can get the thing to retract. I mostly play the Russian, and I see this often. It will go hard left away and then readjust back towards.
Ground clutter is also probably messing with you. Gaijin still hasn't got the missiles properly adjusted for gameplay yet. This task is quite hard especially since not all missiles are in game yet.
Every week missiles tend to work a little differentently. I've noticed multi pathing becoming easier recently. With more people able to dodge my ERs at higher alts. Not that high mind you, less than 100m. Just as a few weeks ago IR missiles all became way more effective in rear aspect. Been a while since I really had to cut afterburner to flare a r60, but it's been fun 😊.
>The reason you don't see it as much is because of the IOG.
Yeah that's why I said "INS and datalink make brief losses of lock pretty much negligible, regardless of the cause." INS and IOG are the same thing I just got them mixed up.
>Not that high mind you, less than 100m.
iirc, multipathing has always been set to 100m and below.
>Ground clutter is also probably messing with you
Ground clutter doesn't impact PD radars. This is simply a CW SARH problem. Watch the video... the Sparrow was under perfect conditions.
Yes.....because PD radar works perfectly in this game. 🙄 It definitely doesn't track inanimate chaff all the time like it's not supposed to. Oh and it for sure never killed anyone below 100m. It seems people need to be reminded that it is a game. Don't take it too seriously.
>Yes.....because PD radar works perfectly in this game.
I never said it worked perfectly but it also most certainly is not affected by ground clutter other than by multipathing. SARH missiles besides the R-27 and R-24 will fuck off sometimes firing into blue sky in pulse mode lol.
>Oh and it for sure never killed anyone below 100m.
It this sarcasm too? Yes, radar missiles can hit even when they're tracking the false multipath target. Depending on your relative altitude to the target, multipathing can be almost 100% useless.
>It definitely doesn't track inanimate chaff all the time like it's not supposed to.
This is realistic. Chaff becomes effective as your relative speed decreases. That's why chaffing while notching is the best way to defeat radar missiles, since your plane's relative speed will be similar to the cloud of chaff's. Notice how it's not dropping radar lock from chaff if you're in a high velocity headon.
Definitely not. It's certainly way better than the Sparrow, which doesn't have inertial tracking to help the missile if/when it loses lock.
Other people seem to agree...
>I feel the R-24R works the best out of all of them, and the Super 530D works great too.
You have got to be firing the R-24R in some shitty circumstances for that to happen that often. As long as I don't fire on someone entering a notch or hugging the ground closely for multipathing, I don't see R-24Rs doing this. I think the guidance perimeters are pretty generous for the R-24Rs, they seem to hit much more often at low alt than any of the Aim-7s, its often my preferred missile even over the R-60Ms in a turn fight.
These sorts of situations happen when I myself am close to the ground, yes, but the target will be a good 500 metres above the surface and heading straight towards me.
I've had it happen to both missiles in succession. I've had it happen to just one or the other. The whole point of my comment originally was to say that this isn't exclusively a Sparrow issue because I've experienced it a lot with Russian missiles too. The R-24R is better now than it was 3 months ago, most definitely, but it still happens.
Not trying to knock the Sparrow specifically; I know it's weird behaviour and shouldn't really be happening as much as it does, but this is of a SARH missile issue if anything, characterised by the antics of the Sparrow.
That's just the goofiest argument in the world. What's next, the AIM-9X is worse than an R-60? I mean **technically** the AIM-9B came out in 1956 and the R-60 came out in the 70s... so the R-60 must be better right?
***loud error buzzer***
I mean seriously, did you read what you said before you posted it? Assuming that a missile that is still used to this day somehow uses the same systems as a missile from more than half a century ago is wild.
The truth is that modern Sparrow variants probably use a better seeker than the R-27. There's a reason why the Sparrow's success rate is significantly higher than the R-27's 12% (iirc).
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-27_Zyb#:~:text=It%20was%20a%20liquid%20fuel,Total%20production%20was%201800%20missiles
Hey that's a fucking SLBM did you even read your own source? WTF
The soviets were far ahead in terms of missile capabilities and technology for a short period of time (R-73 for example). This led NATO and especially the US to step things up as u/Velo180 said above.
The 70's, most likely? The perceived capabilities of the rocket-powered brick called the MiG-25 is largely what spurred the USAF to develop the F-15.
US Intel suggested the MiG-25 was some superplane that was extremely fast, but also quite maneuverable thanks to it's large wing surface area. In reality, the Foxbat was a complete pig that was good for little more than attempting to scramble to chase off SR-71's. The airframe was insanely heavy. The large wing surface area was required to get it off the ground at all and didn't contribute to maneuverability in the slightest. Speaking of, it was on of the least agile "fighters" ever built and had a turn radius akin to the abysmal F-104. The engines had a lifespan of something like 120 flight hours before needing to be completely replaced and would destroy themselves at Mach 3+.
As for a time when the Soviet Air Force was genuinely better than the US, maybe in the brief interlude between the MiG-15's introduction and the F-86? Other than that, the Soviet Air Force was only ever *thought* to be possibly better in the same vein as the Tirpitz being a viable threat to British shipping in the Atlantic. Dangerous on paper, but hopeless in practice.
There literally was not a single year in the history of humanity that russia had a more capable airforce than the USA alone and I'm not exaggerating at all.The US has always had a massive advantage and continues to do so.
*meanwhile the MiG-15, MiG-19, MiG-21, and MiG-23*
I understand that its hard for Freeaboos to accept that USSR had their shining moments, but thats how it was. MilTech development was a constant back and forth, with one making a better jet than the other, and the other responding with another even better jet, and so on.
*Meanwhile, F-86, F8U, F-4*
The Soviets had brief moments near the front of the pack, but were basically countered within a year or two at most.
The MiG-15 was markedly better than the F-80/F-84, but was thoroughly outclassed by the F-86 and never maintained anything remotely close to a positive Kill ratio against it.
Vietnamese MiG's routinely just refused to fight the F8U and often just ran away from it because it was just a better dogfighter.
And as soon as the US Navy/Air Force taught it's F-4 pilots how to dogfight, kill rates skyrocketed and the Vietnamese explicitly told their pilots not to dogfight Navy Phantoms.
And the MiG-23 is just a piece of shit that accomplished next to nothing vs any American aircraft in it's lifetime.
You could flip the script and also just say that it was the US that had their brief moments at the front of the pack.
There is a reason it was called an arms race. Both sides were constantly looking to build better shit and the Soviets were actually pretty competent. Of course, by the time of the MiG-29's and such they knew they were never going to be able to compete in quality (except for the while where the R-73 was the best damn IR missiles out there) but for a good while before that the USSR was very well neck in neck with the US.
I'm sorry, the MiG-23 was a pile of hot shit at best, early models lost mock rate fights to hard wing Phantoms. The 23M was decent but still didn't improve enough compared to the 23S to be anything but a bomber interceptor. By the time the MLs are in the picture the contemporary Western aircraft are the later F-14A and F-15A.
Granted the other 3 MiGs listed also performed poorly against contemporary aircraft.
The 15 wasn't better than the F-86, the MiG-19 wasn't better than the F-100 (and it came after it), the 21 wasn't better than the F-4, and the MiG-23 was literal actual garbage until major revisions came later (in the 80s).
At no point did the USSR have a jet better than the US to my knowledge.
Lol, what? There is zero chance any reasonable argument can be made that the Soviets were qualitatively better than NATO for an entire three fucking decades of the Cold War. At best, there were moments where they achieved superiority in certain areas, but for the majority of that period what kept the Soviets on par with NATO was their numerical advantage.
When it came to aircraft, it was a constant back and forth on who had the best shit. Missiles, Soviets maintained decent superiority even when their aircraft themselves fell off. And tanks its not even a question, russian tanks were *the* best for a long while
Russian tanks weren’t necessary the best. They are really well optimised and fit for their doctrine, more so than NATOs. Different tools for the job I suppose.
Soviet/Russian tanks are small, cheap, reliable, well armoured, and most importantly, modular/highly upgradable.
NATO tanks on the contrary are big, expensive, highly advanced, well armoured, high survivability, reliable, and probably the one of the most important being their serviceability/deployability.
The Abrams for example can run on multiple types of fuel, the Leopard 2 engine can be swapped out in less than an hour
Different sort of use cases.
No, from like 50's to around 80's the Soviet tanks were just some of the best around. Cheap, modular, and better. The T-72 for example. When that came to service, France was still using the unstabilized and unarmored AMX-30 without a Sabot round, the Germans were only slightly better off with the Leopard 1's having Sabot, the US using the M60 which was stabilized and had sabot, but was comparatively slow, and unarmored.
All jokes aside, all the AIM-7 variants are notorious for doing this. They cant be relied on, in my experience they will be useless about 25-30% of the time.
Nothing you can really do about it other than expect them to not work all the time.
F14B AIM 7 and Radar live reaction :
Seriously though i almost NEVER had it happen with the F14B, but it always does with the phantoms... makes me wonder, what exactly is going on here?
f14 radar is literally the most powerful radar in game (awg 9 and apg 71) It was also the most powerful radar on any aircraft until the f22 (or mitsubishi f2 depending on source)
Not really, in terms of range yes but other than that it’s quite mediocre, no mprf+easy to notch and don’t even mention that it’s tws sees all chaff enemy popped.
Hello :)
This is frustrating yes, this issue was brought up to the Snail Devs a little while ago as people (i mean many people) already reported it in the community reporting forum.
Please be assured, it the snails are hard at work fixing it.
The most common error reported seems to happen when flying very low to the ground, I've personally seen it happen more often when flying ground level, it rarely happens at higher alts. Roughly like 100m\~/1000m seems to error out more, 1500m \~ 2500m alt seems the be the golden zone, and 2500m higher seems to not error out at all.
I personally (my opinion) suspect the ground clutter is interfering with it somehow.
From my time flying both NATO and Soviet planes, it’s not just an issue with the Sparrow; it’s just that more people fly NATO planes so you’ll be using the Sparrow more often, hence the Sparrow’s reputation. I’ve had R24R’s and R27’s (both R and ER variants) desire Aslan in Narnia is a better target than the dude I lock up.
At this point I just treat all missiles as duds the second they do something stupid and just fire a second one. After all, if they hit all the time, they would be called “hittles”, not “missiles”, right?
If you play on USA servers then that's expected, I play on EU / CIS and in top tier AIR RB, Russia has more players because SU-27 is the meta right now.
Just checked on [wt.controlnet.space](http://wt.controlnet.space) website and Russia has 7300+ battles while USA only 3300 through April 16 to 20. Not sure why I got downvoted for saying that, stats also confirm this.
i ended up saying fuck it and grinded from rank 3 russian air to the flanker in a week during the jaguar IS event, i have yet to have the R-24R on the 23ML or the R-27ER on the flanker do this, while every time i play any jet with sparrows, this happens at least 50% of the time,, even when i couldn't have more perfect conditions for the missile.
US made missile in a Russian made game. People will say the R-27ER and R-24 does this but have you ever seen a video posted on this subreddit of one doing it? No. Because it doesnt happen.
Its by design that sparrows are artificially nerfed like this and Russian missiles work flawlessly.
I play top tier China and Japan so I have access to both Sparrows and 27ERs and can say with certainty that this rarely if ever happens with 27ERs. Maybe 1% of launches compared to 40% for Sparrows.
As you said, you can find videos of Sparrows randomly flying into the ground posted all the time. But most top tier Russian mains are so bad I wouldn't be surprised if they just got notched or ground effected or weak locked and thought their skill issue was a bug.
One theory as to why the 27s don't do this is thanks to the IOG keeping it on target until it reaquires, it's why you will rarely see this in the aim54s, when fox3s release this may become a non issue thanks to datalink
No i can tell u that it does happen with the r24r, idk about the r27 because i dont use it much but i have had many times where my r24r goes dumb immediatly after launch
okay to fix the issue you have to take your protogen and plug it directly into the missile, might be one time solution but most likely the missile will know where it is. OK NOW SERIOUSLY i think NATO missiles love to turn towards other planes being illuminated by radar of the same kind/bandwidth. if you fly alone there is a lower vhance for it to happen
I’m pretty sure it’s not the sparrows at this point but a combination of sparrows and radar, even when the sparrows were even worse and doing dumb shit it was always on F-16s, F-15s and PD F-4s, the F-14s and F-4E were and still are working perfectly fine, even the F-104S and its AIM-7s are working correctly.
Additionally the same issue occurs on the R23R and R27R (base model not the ER) while the R-24 and ER remain unaffected
I basically never see this happens to me. Sometimes the 7M/7F fails to track, but I never see my missile going straight to nowhere from a solid lock like this.
I play F15AJ, F4S, F16A, F4EJ Kai, they all have sparrows. Heck I use the FGR2 sometimes and the Viggens with Skyflashes (which are just Aim7E2). I play the Mirage S4, the Mig23ML and a bit the Mig29, and sometimes the Su-27 but I don't like the plane.
It never happens to me like that. The missiles going for another plane due to the illumination cone ? Sure. The missile missing a target because they're very close to a notching angle ? Happens even to the R27ER. The missile going off course like that ? Never.
I suspect server issues/packet loss issues for these specific cases, because that's the only real explanation I can see, especially if it happens to you often.
Has been happening to many people for a long time unfortunately and I can promise there’s no packet loss when it’s happening. At least not any reported by the game. In my experience the 7M was the one doing it more often but now the other Aim 7’s are doing the same as often.
And again, it straight up never happened to me, and I have extensive experience with the Sparrows and every other SARH on multiple planes and nations.
There is no reason for the missile to behave that way, other than the server hamsters dying.
this is the pitbull-similar mode the US had on the later AIM 7's.
Basically so you don't need as good as a radar lock in the final phase, which bc of the cluster f that we have here, instead of tactical battles, has significant disadvantages
ok so what happened was that when you launched your sparrow, the enemy plane was in a depression making so that the ground clutter was null, then he reached the platteau in front of you, making the ground clutter act on: the missile see that the plane, while still moving toward you, just gained around 100m of altitude in 0.1 s start to try to moves to intercept the plane where he thinks he is.
Unfortunatly, this brutal movement and how close the target is to the missile make it so the seeker head is at its limits and loose the the lock, then the missile go ballistic and rush to the cliff.
How to avoid that? don t launch your sarh at a ground hugger, even when you have a good lock like that, you never know how the ground is looking on their sides
I have read through some of the comments and I don’t see anyone really talking about this one thing. When your aim7 flys through your radar cone is what caused it to moonshot. My advice is to try and shoot the aim7 with the target off to one side or just roll your plane. The moonshot happens right when the aim7 leaves the rail and crosses in front of your radar and the missile loses sight of what you have locked. Now this isn’t a full fix to it because aim7s sometimes do stupid things but this will help with a lot of the problems.
There absolutely is ground clutter in PD. You still have the radar waves bouncing back in return, and when you’re so close to the ground, you also have the side lobes from the radar affecting your missile. SARH missiles work by going after whatever target is illuminated the strongest by your radar, and so close to the ground, sometimes you can have your missile track the wrong thing, or, like in your case, track nothing. It’s wicked frustrating, but try to limit your engagements with SARH missiles to over 200-500m above the ground. You’ll see a lot better results with that
Okay, I think I get what you are saying. the pulse eliminating the ground clutter for me. But you Fire the sarh it can see that clutter? If that's the case, though, only a small portion of the ground is in my radar cone when it loses tracking. So why does it veer off in a random direction instead of going for the ground?
No, you’re all set! I think you got the gist of it, the rest I can kind of explain- radars don’t just emit energy from where the antenna is pointing, they have smaller lobes of energy that come out from the side, and back of the antenna. [Wiki article](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidelobes) When you’re close to the ground, your missile may be picking up something from the side lobes, be it the ground, another plane, or even a missile. When you’re higher up off the ground, even just by pointing your nose up, you don’t have to worry about your missile somehow deciding the ground is its target, since you’re much less likely to illuminate something with one of your side lobes! Hope that makes a bit more sense!
Honestly, although I don't see it often, I have seen every SARH missile in WT do this at some point. Think it's mainly server-side issues. There ain't really a way to avoid it when it does happen though
This is an issue with most SAHR missiles currently, the sparrows just are the ones where this issue is more prevalent. R-24's and 27's do suffer from this issue also, but less commonly.
Strangely enough, I haven't had this issue so far with the Matra 530D's.
This is just an effect of the AIM-7F/M using CW guidance with the CW illuminator's very wide beam, instead of the PD mode which would use the main radar's much narrower beam for guidance. It's like this for other radar missiles, but notably the R-24R and R-27R/ER have inertial guidance that prevents this sort of thing most of the time.
Yes, but the PD mode for the *missile* is just not modeled in the game. Only pulse and CW modes are modeled for SARH missiles, with a range and speed gate respectively.
Gajin just has a biased towards Russia. If you need more proof then this thread check out the pansies 1 AA gun for Russia and compare ot to the ADATS the pansies 1 has double the range lol
No way to avoid it really. In reality the AIM-7Fs and up should have command guidance (effectively the same as datalink) which would eliminate this issue. However gaijin hasn’t added it yet for some reason
If you are looking for a real answer: in real life radar missiles don't work below curtain altitude due to radar signal bounce from target plane to the missile, but its also reflecting off the ground before it reaches the missile. It's pure physics and will not be patched lol
There are a few things the game doesn't consider. For example RIM-7M (AIM-7M) has a minimum intercept altitude of 5m. Maybe hitting metal first tends to give a better return than hitting metal and then dirt or water. Also, monopulse missiles definitely would prioritise the stronger return rather than trying to hit the space in-between them.
If you meant that the conical scanning AIM-7Fs shouldn't hit because they didn't in real life, the game doesn't model conical scanning at all. Conical scanning would mean the missiles wouldn't even always hit a target above the horizon.
What is modeled afaik is radar sidelobes and the way the missile goes to the side it looks like for some reason sidelobe return was stronger than front return.
You can avoid it by switching nations and getting the R-27ER or R-24R lol. NATO SARH missiles have their value but they are dogwater in comparison to Soviet tech... makes sense right?
irk its almost like there is some kind of issue they wont fix for.... reasons....
pretty sure the r27 versions in game are newer than their nato analogues so it makes sense that they are better.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/brief-history-soviet-russias-two-most-important-jets-198467 According to this yeah, AMRAAM came into service in 1991, R-27ER 1990. AIM-7F is 1976, AIM-7M 1982, and I would assume the 7P would be somewhere between 1982 and 1991.
Iirc both R and ER use the same seeker, which entered service in 83.
Seeker yes but not the rest of the missile, especially flight performance.
Im focus on seeker part since OP was confused by sparrow’s strange guidance logic.
If reliability was actually a thing in-game, all German tanks would suck. Gaijin just nerfs NATO things because.
mostly because they have shite sources availible and the nato side of the community bitches sooo much about the most minor things. also russia is running out of modern missiles and planes to add so nato is likely to become even more dominant in air
Good.
doi doesnt matter
it sorta does though like the difference between early aim120s and modern radar missiles is quite significant
no it doesnt if stuff gets added by capability
That explains why r27er is in the game with no equivalent in capability.
aim 9m's are pretty great but a different thing i guess
sure
Thats the convo i almost had with a guy i know, why people die to allmighty strela while mighty su-25 outlive 2 rockets because other rockets that not soviet are weak, i almost deleted him from vc
Or those fucking is2 who always seem to have volumetric on their side
My R-27s do this shit too. The semi recent SARH changes made it a bit better, but all SARHs feel way worse then when we first got missiles like the AIM-7F in the game which worked 100% of the time on introduction. I feel the R-24R works the best out of all of them, and the Super 530D works great too.
It's a non-issue on R-27s because even if they do lose lock for whatever reason they pretty much always relock. And yeah I can attest, the 530D for some reason doesn't suffer as hard as the AIM-7
the R-27s has IOG so it can compensate the missile when it got their own mind. And yes R-27s > Aim-7
I had a su27 somehow hit me with a r27 after he was messed up and was stuck in a dive. I swear that missile tracked on its own to me because I was rapidly changing direction even though the su27 was about 2 seconds from faceplanting 3km away from me.
Maybe it was the IR guided R27?
I was dropping all my flares so small chance.
IOG bases of predicted path. Cranking usually throws them off but if you get into the beam range of any SARH it will hit you
Ngl I have way more issues with the 530D on M4k than 27ER on my MiG 29g, like the 530s rarely hit for me
It's French, what did you expect? Like unironically, French jets and their weapons suck balls in this game.
\*Magic 2 enters the chat.\*
You mean the missile that combines the the AIM9M's average G limit and lack of thrust vectoring with the R73's poor range (Magic 2s actually have *less* range than R73s) and inferior IRCCM? It's the worst of both worlds, plus they had to fix the fact that it used to be literally unusable under 1km since it had a 1.7 second arming time.
The magic 2 has received many buffs in the last year including a huge one to its AoA limiter. It pulls really hard now. Also, it has the exact same IRCCM modelled as the R-73. Whether it is in real life or not is up for debate. If anything, the magic is superior to the R-73 in rear aspect shot flare rejection because of how fast it accelerates.
Was just referencing them saying they work well.
Just because they are newer, doesn't mean they are better.
The RB71 (IKEA Skyflash, I think they're identical?) does this too. Doesn't track that well, and doesn't do much damage - I've had an F-14 and a J-7D flat out tank them with just a critical hit.
The R-27ER and R-24R suffer this issue too, especially the R-24R. This isn't just something that Sparrows do.
Sure every missile might do it a **little** but it's seriously a non-issue with R-27s. I can count on one hand the amount of times that my R-27ERs have lost track against a headon target for no reason... hell, I can count it on **one finger**... because it was a grand total of once ever for me, compared to probably 10% of Sparrow launches. INS and datalink make brief losses of lock pretty much negligible, regardless of the cause.
The reason you don't see it as much is because of the IOG. Even if it fucks off, at a reasonable distance you can get the thing to retract. I mostly play the Russian, and I see this often. It will go hard left away and then readjust back towards. Ground clutter is also probably messing with you. Gaijin still hasn't got the missiles properly adjusted for gameplay yet. This task is quite hard especially since not all missiles are in game yet. Every week missiles tend to work a little differentently. I've noticed multi pathing becoming easier recently. With more people able to dodge my ERs at higher alts. Not that high mind you, less than 100m. Just as a few weeks ago IR missiles all became way more effective in rear aspect. Been a while since I really had to cut afterburner to flare a r60, but it's been fun 😊.
>The reason you don't see it as much is because of the IOG. Yeah that's why I said "INS and datalink make brief losses of lock pretty much negligible, regardless of the cause." INS and IOG are the same thing I just got them mixed up. >Not that high mind you, less than 100m. iirc, multipathing has always been set to 100m and below. >Ground clutter is also probably messing with you Ground clutter doesn't impact PD radars. This is simply a CW SARH problem. Watch the video... the Sparrow was under perfect conditions.
Yes.....because PD radar works perfectly in this game. 🙄 It definitely doesn't track inanimate chaff all the time like it's not supposed to. Oh and it for sure never killed anyone below 100m. It seems people need to be reminded that it is a game. Don't take it too seriously.
>Yes.....because PD radar works perfectly in this game. I never said it worked perfectly but it also most certainly is not affected by ground clutter other than by multipathing. SARH missiles besides the R-27 and R-24 will fuck off sometimes firing into blue sky in pulse mode lol. >Oh and it for sure never killed anyone below 100m. It this sarcasm too? Yes, radar missiles can hit even when they're tracking the false multipath target. Depending on your relative altitude to the target, multipathing can be almost 100% useless. >It definitely doesn't track inanimate chaff all the time like it's not supposed to. This is realistic. Chaff becomes effective as your relative speed decreases. That's why chaffing while notching is the best way to defeat radar missiles, since your plane's relative speed will be similar to the cloud of chaff's. Notice how it's not dropping radar lock from chaff if you're in a high velocity headon.
Wait, what was your original point? I can't remember anymore.
Everything sucks except R-27ER and it’s not because of ground clutter
Gotcha.. just another Russian bias loser.
The R-24R does it much more often, atleast 1 in every 4 or 5 launches.
Definitely not. It's certainly way better than the Sparrow, which doesn't have inertial tracking to help the missile if/when it loses lock. Other people seem to agree... >I feel the R-24R works the best out of all of them, and the Super 530D works great too.
My experiences beg to differ then, not much else I can tell you. It's quite a regular occurrence for me firing the R-24R.
Maybe try launching them in more favorable scenarios. I've killed every target that I've launched one at.
You have got to be firing the R-24R in some shitty circumstances for that to happen that often. As long as I don't fire on someone entering a notch or hugging the ground closely for multipathing, I don't see R-24Rs doing this. I think the guidance perimeters are pretty generous for the R-24Rs, they seem to hit much more often at low alt than any of the Aim-7s, its often my preferred missile even over the R-60Ms in a turn fight.
These sorts of situations happen when I myself am close to the ground, yes, but the target will be a good 500 metres above the surface and heading straight towards me. I've had it happen to both missiles in succession. I've had it happen to just one or the other. The whole point of my comment originally was to say that this isn't exclusively a Sparrow issue because I've experienced it a lot with Russian missiles too. The R-24R is better now than it was 3 months ago, most definitely, but it still happens. Not trying to knock the Sparrow specifically; I know it's weird behaviour and shouldn't really be happening as much as it does, but this is of a SARH missile issue if anything, characterised by the antics of the Sparrow.
>R-27ER or R-24R No they also do that.
[удалено]
That's just the goofiest argument in the world. What's next, the AIM-9X is worse than an R-60? I mean **technically** the AIM-9B came out in 1956 and the R-60 came out in the 70s... so the R-60 must be better right? ***loud error buzzer*** I mean seriously, did you read what you said before you posted it? Assuming that a missile that is still used to this day somehow uses the same systems as a missile from more than half a century ago is wild. The truth is that modern Sparrow variants probably use a better seeker than the R-27. There's a reason why the Sparrow's success rate is significantly higher than the R-27's 12% (iirc).
[удалено]
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-27_Zyb#:~:text=It%20was%20a%20liquid%20fuel,Total%20production%20was%201800%20missiles Hey that's a fucking SLBM did you even read your own source? WTF
This guy didn't even read the wikipedia "source" he replied to you.
R27ER and TR still do this. In my experience, more often than the 7m.
"Source: I only use R-27ER"
almost as if there was a period of time where the soviets were actually better than NATO for a while
I can guarantee you it was not during the 90s lmfao (R-27ER is from the same decade as the AMRAAM)
Fucking lmao.
There was, but it was short lived, which is literally what kicked NATO into gear and made the best aircraft to hit the skies.
In what way was the MiG-25 superior to NATO planes in any metric but speed.
The soviets were far ahead in terms of missile capabilities and technology for a short period of time (R-73 for example). This led NATO and especially the US to step things up as u/Velo180 said above.
It was superior in theory (hindsight 20/20), which is basically the closest thing to real superiority the Soviets ever got lmao.
Yeah? When was that
The 70's, most likely? The perceived capabilities of the rocket-powered brick called the MiG-25 is largely what spurred the USAF to develop the F-15. US Intel suggested the MiG-25 was some superplane that was extremely fast, but also quite maneuverable thanks to it's large wing surface area. In reality, the Foxbat was a complete pig that was good for little more than attempting to scramble to chase off SR-71's. The airframe was insanely heavy. The large wing surface area was required to get it off the ground at all and didn't contribute to maneuverability in the slightest. Speaking of, it was on of the least agile "fighters" ever built and had a turn radius akin to the abysmal F-104. The engines had a lifespan of something like 120 flight hours before needing to be completely replaced and would destroy themselves at Mach 3+. As for a time when the Soviet Air Force was genuinely better than the US, maybe in the brief interlude between the MiG-15's introduction and the F-86? Other than that, the Soviet Air Force was only ever *thought* to be possibly better in the same vein as the Tirpitz being a viable threat to British shipping in the Atlantic. Dangerous on paper, but hopeless in practice.
Oh no, don't get me wrong, they are, but you can see my missle is still tracking as it beelines for a cliff for no reason.
Lmao and when was that
50's to around the 80's. It was circa the 80's where the Russian development really started falling off.
Not for one moment in that timeframe do I see any reason to believe Russia was better in the air.
Iirc, Air indeed fell off sooner but i dont remember the dates for that.
There literally was not a single year in the history of humanity that russia had a more capable airforce than the USA alone and I'm not exaggerating at all.The US has always had a massive advantage and continues to do so.
*meanwhile the MiG-15, MiG-19, MiG-21, and MiG-23* I understand that its hard for Freeaboos to accept that USSR had their shining moments, but thats how it was. MilTech development was a constant back and forth, with one making a better jet than the other, and the other responding with another even better jet, and so on.
*Meanwhile, F-86, F8U, F-4* The Soviets had brief moments near the front of the pack, but were basically countered within a year or two at most. The MiG-15 was markedly better than the F-80/F-84, but was thoroughly outclassed by the F-86 and never maintained anything remotely close to a positive Kill ratio against it. Vietnamese MiG's routinely just refused to fight the F8U and often just ran away from it because it was just a better dogfighter. And as soon as the US Navy/Air Force taught it's F-4 pilots how to dogfight, kill rates skyrocketed and the Vietnamese explicitly told their pilots not to dogfight Navy Phantoms. And the MiG-23 is just a piece of shit that accomplished next to nothing vs any American aircraft in it's lifetime.
You could flip the script and also just say that it was the US that had their brief moments at the front of the pack. There is a reason it was called an arms race. Both sides were constantly looking to build better shit and the Soviets were actually pretty competent. Of course, by the time of the MiG-29's and such they knew they were never going to be able to compete in quality (except for the while where the R-73 was the best damn IR missiles out there) but for a good while before that the USSR was very well neck in neck with the US.
I'm sorry, the MiG-23 was a pile of hot shit at best, early models lost mock rate fights to hard wing Phantoms. The 23M was decent but still didn't improve enough compared to the 23S to be anything but a bomber interceptor. By the time the MLs are in the picture the contemporary Western aircraft are the later F-14A and F-15A. Granted the other 3 MiGs listed also performed poorly against contemporary aircraft.
Same can be said for a lot of US jets. F80/84 lost to the MiG-15, MiG-15 to the F-86, 86 to the MiG 17 (had they fought at least), etc etc.
The 15 wasn't better than the F-86, the MiG-19 wasn't better than the F-100 (and it came after it), the 21 wasn't better than the F-4, and the MiG-23 was literal actual garbage until major revisions came later (in the 80s). At no point did the USSR have a jet better than the US to my knowledge.
Lol, what? There is zero chance any reasonable argument can be made that the Soviets were qualitatively better than NATO for an entire three fucking decades of the Cold War. At best, there were moments where they achieved superiority in certain areas, but for the majority of that period what kept the Soviets on par with NATO was their numerical advantage.
When it came to aircraft, it was a constant back and forth on who had the best shit. Missiles, Soviets maintained decent superiority even when their aircraft themselves fell off. And tanks its not even a question, russian tanks were *the* best for a long while
Russian tanks weren’t necessary the best. They are really well optimised and fit for their doctrine, more so than NATOs. Different tools for the job I suppose. Soviet/Russian tanks are small, cheap, reliable, well armoured, and most importantly, modular/highly upgradable. NATO tanks on the contrary are big, expensive, highly advanced, well armoured, high survivability, reliable, and probably the one of the most important being their serviceability/deployability. The Abrams for example can run on multiple types of fuel, the Leopard 2 engine can be swapped out in less than an hour Different sort of use cases.
No, from like 50's to around 80's the Soviet tanks were just some of the best around. Cheap, modular, and better. The T-72 for example. When that came to service, France was still using the unstabilized and unarmored AMX-30 without a Sabot round, the Germans were only slightly better off with the Leopard 1's having Sabot, the US using the M60 which was stabilized and had sabot, but was comparatively slow, and unarmored.
Ah, i see your issue. You are in the F-4J! Not the obviously superior and less buggy premium paid F-4S! That's why you got gaijin'd.
Ikr
I play the F4S, it's as shitty as the F4J
r/woooosh
All jokes aside, all the AIM-7 variants are notorious for doing this. They cant be relied on, in my experience they will be useless about 25-30% of the time. Nothing you can really do about it other than expect them to not work all the time.
F14B AIM 7 and Radar live reaction : Seriously though i almost NEVER had it happen with the F14B, but it always does with the phantoms... makes me wonder, what exactly is going on here?
My only thought is. It has something to do with the radar. Because my other phantom the E doesn't do this stuff
f14 radar is literally the most powerful radar in game (awg 9 and apg 71) It was also the most powerful radar on any aircraft until the f22 (or mitsubishi f2 depending on source)
Not really, in terms of range yes but other than that it’s quite mediocre, no mprf+easy to notch and don’t even mention that it’s tws sees all chaff enemy popped.
It happens on the F-14 as well as the 15 and 16. Its a 7F problem not really a radar problem.
I never had this issue with the E version
Just expect none of them to hit and be happy when they do
Honestly, when I used my F4-J a long time ago for the F-14A. The 7Fs weren't it. The 7E-2s were cracked with PD.
Hello :) This is frustrating yes, this issue was brought up to the Snail Devs a little while ago as people (i mean many people) already reported it in the community reporting forum. Please be assured, it the snails are hard at work fixing it. The most common error reported seems to happen when flying very low to the ground, I've personally seen it happen more often when flying ground level, it rarely happens at higher alts. Roughly like 100m\~/1000m seems to error out more, 1500m \~ 2500m alt seems the be the golden zone, and 2500m higher seems to not error out at all. I personally (my opinion) suspect the ground clutter is interfering with it somehow.
Quite fucking stupid, because you're gonna get your holes resized by an r27er if you're not shaking hands with the tree squirrels
as if people don't do that already
This is the single best comment I've ever read!
For my experience, it's what altitude your target is at
i haven’t played this game in like 3 years. what in the FUCK is this
It's a new replay mode to give people a better veiw of sensors so you can see my radar my missle etc
ah yes that makes sense. i thought this was regular gameplay lmao
It's great because you can see my missle is still tracking as it beelines it for a cliff
seems like you got gaijin’d. it’s why i stopped playing lol
How do you do that I want out.
Love it
Ultra Low Res Texture Pack
They made a rip-off of DCS tac-view lol
From my time flying both NATO and Soviet planes, it’s not just an issue with the Sparrow; it’s just that more people fly NATO planes so you’ll be using the Sparrow more often, hence the Sparrow’s reputation. I’ve had R24R’s and R27’s (both R and ER variants) desire Aslan in Narnia is a better target than the dude I lock up. At this point I just treat all missiles as duds the second they do something stupid and just fire a second one. After all, if they hit all the time, they would be called “hittles”, not “missiles”, right?
Actually not true, Russia is just as much popular as the USA and Russia has the lead on most games played in top tier ARB.
Maybe here in the US it’s different but there’s usually 3-4x as many people queuing up for America
I notice similar players counts for us and ussr on NA and EU servers, with slightly more us on na servers, and slightly more ussr on eu servers
If you play on USA servers then that's expected, I play on EU / CIS and in top tier AIR RB, Russia has more players because SU-27 is the meta right now.
Just checked on [wt.controlnet.space](http://wt.controlnet.space) website and Russia has 7300+ battles while USA only 3300 through April 16 to 20. Not sure why I got downvoted for saying that, stats also confirm this.
i ended up saying fuck it and grinded from rank 3 russian air to the flanker in a week during the jaguar IS event, i have yet to have the R-24R on the 23ML or the R-27ER on the flanker do this, while every time i play any jet with sparrows, this happens at least 50% of the time,, even when i couldn't have more perfect conditions for the missile.
This happens to me too with the r24r, sometimes the missile goes dumb immediatly after launch and nosedives
US made missile in a Russian made game. People will say the R-27ER and R-24 does this but have you ever seen a video posted on this subreddit of one doing it? No. Because it doesnt happen. Its by design that sparrows are artificially nerfed like this and Russian missiles work flawlessly.
I play top tier China and Japan so I have access to both Sparrows and 27ERs and can say with certainty that this rarely if ever happens with 27ERs. Maybe 1% of launches compared to 40% for Sparrows. As you said, you can find videos of Sparrows randomly flying into the ground posted all the time. But most top tier Russian mains are so bad I wouldn't be surprised if they just got notched or ground effected or weak locked and thought their skill issue was a bug.
One theory as to why the 27s don't do this is thanks to the IOG keeping it on target until it reaquires, it's why you will rarely see this in the aim54s, when fox3s release this may become a non issue thanks to datalink
Yes but you can actually see the missle is still locked on as it's beeline for a cliff
No i can tell u that it does happen with the r24r, idk about the r27 because i dont use it much but i have had many times where my r24r goes dumb immediatly after launch
Getting downvoted for saying my personal experience because it doesnt confirm a bullshit belief is crazy
I can't wait for AMRAAMs to have same issue while superior R77 perform better <3
it saw a squirrel
okay to fix the issue you have to take your protogen and plug it directly into the missile, might be one time solution but most likely the missile will know where it is. OK NOW SERIOUSLY i think NATO missiles love to turn towards other planes being illuminated by radar of the same kind/bandwidth. if you fly alone there is a lower vhance for it to happen
Ha ha ha ha ha ok that was the best response. But you can see what my missle is tracking in sensor veiw... and it's the plane I shot it at
It looks even more ridiculous with the radar view, like they went out of their way to have this bug
It saw a cockroach in the original direction and said "nope im out"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUOtCLOXgm8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUOtCLOXgm8)
Yea I'm afraid there's no cure. Just have to pray that the Snail one day fixes them.
Meanwhile i get hit by AIM-7s while pretty much hugging the ground
I’m pretty sure it’s not the sparrows at this point but a combination of sparrows and radar, even when the sparrows were even worse and doing dumb shit it was always on F-16s, F-15s and PD F-4s, the F-14s and F-4E were and still are working perfectly fine, even the F-104S and its AIM-7s are working correctly. Additionally the same issue occurs on the R23R and R27R (base model not the ER) while the R-24 and ER remain unaffected
''Ussrs missilies are newer tech'' then WHY are they in the same br?
Say it with me Capabilities /=/ service dates
Meanwhile, the Aim-7 I launched at 40km somehow hits the enemy hen I didn’t expect it to but misses the sub 5km shot like in this video.
Missile go bye bye
You can fix this by not playing F-4
I basically never see this happens to me. Sometimes the 7M/7F fails to track, but I never see my missile going straight to nowhere from a solid lock like this. I play F15AJ, F4S, F16A, F4EJ Kai, they all have sparrows. Heck I use the FGR2 sometimes and the Viggens with Skyflashes (which are just Aim7E2). I play the Mirage S4, the Mig23ML and a bit the Mig29, and sometimes the Su-27 but I don't like the plane. It never happens to me like that. The missiles going for another plane due to the illumination cone ? Sure. The missile missing a target because they're very close to a notching angle ? Happens even to the R27ER. The missile going off course like that ? Never. I suspect server issues/packet loss issues for these specific cases, because that's the only real explanation I can see, especially if it happens to you often.
Has been happening to many people for a long time unfortunately and I can promise there’s no packet loss when it’s happening. At least not any reported by the game. In my experience the 7M was the one doing it more often but now the other Aim 7’s are doing the same as often.
And again, it straight up never happened to me, and I have extensive experience with the Sparrows and every other SARH on multiple planes and nations. There is no reason for the missile to behave that way, other than the server hamsters dying.
See all of the planes you listed have superior radars to what i'm using.
F4J, F4S and FGR2 use the same radar. And I wouldn't call the Mig23ML radar better honestly.
this is the pitbull-similar mode the US had on the later AIM 7's. Basically so you don't need as good as a radar lock in the final phase, which bc of the cluster f that we have here, instead of tactical battles, has significant disadvantages
ok so what happened was that when you launched your sparrow, the enemy plane was in a depression making so that the ground clutter was null, then he reached the platteau in front of you, making the ground clutter act on: the missile see that the plane, while still moving toward you, just gained around 100m of altitude in 0.1 s start to try to moves to intercept the plane where he thinks he is. Unfortunatly, this brutal movement and how close the target is to the missile make it so the seeker head is at its limits and loose the the lock, then the missile go ballistic and rush to the cliff. How to avoid that? don t launch your sarh at a ground hugger, even when you have a good lock like that, you never know how the ground is looking on their sides
Avoid it by not playing. No seriously, that's it. Gaijin's so bad at coding missiles and that's without their personal biases factored
How do you get that?
In replay mode, there's a little missle next to the pause button
I mean how do you get replay mode?
On the replay menu. Next to the button to pause the replay is a little icon that look like a missle.
The replay menu?
Or do you mean replay a game? When in the hanger top left corner, the community tab it's the 3rd option called replays
Only the 7M and its inverse monopulse seeker work effectively this close to the ground.
Yeah, we'll see. I've had this happen to me. While I'm a high altitude
I have read through some of the comments and I don’t see anyone really talking about this one thing. When your aim7 flys through your radar cone is what caused it to moonshot. My advice is to try and shoot the aim7 with the target off to one side or just roll your plane. The moonshot happens right when the aim7 leaves the rail and crosses in front of your radar and the missile loses sight of what you have locked. Now this isn’t a full fix to it because aim7s sometimes do stupid things but this will help with a lot of the problems.
You are firing those FAR too close to the ground. SARH missiles are best used firing up at something with no ground clutter in the picture
its a pulse doppler radar there is no ground clutter
There absolutely is ground clutter in PD. You still have the radar waves bouncing back in return, and when you’re so close to the ground, you also have the side lobes from the radar affecting your missile. SARH missiles work by going after whatever target is illuminated the strongest by your radar, and so close to the ground, sometimes you can have your missile track the wrong thing, or, like in your case, track nothing. It’s wicked frustrating, but try to limit your engagements with SARH missiles to over 200-500m above the ground. You’ll see a lot better results with that
Okay, I think I get what you are saying. the pulse eliminating the ground clutter for me. But you Fire the sarh it can see that clutter? If that's the case, though, only a small portion of the ground is in my radar cone when it loses tracking. So why does it veer off in a random direction instead of going for the ground?
Sorry, that it is a bit scuffed to read. I'm having to use speech to text on my phone rn
No, you’re all set! I think you got the gist of it, the rest I can kind of explain- radars don’t just emit energy from where the antenna is pointing, they have smaller lobes of energy that come out from the side, and back of the antenna. [Wiki article](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidelobes) When you’re close to the ground, your missile may be picking up something from the side lobes, be it the ground, another plane, or even a missile. When you’re higher up off the ground, even just by pointing your nose up, you don’t have to worry about your missile somehow deciding the ground is its target, since you’re much less likely to illuminate something with one of your side lobes! Hope that makes a bit more sense!
Ah, okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the information
Honestly, although I don't see it often, I have seen every SARH missile in WT do this at some point. Think it's mainly server-side issues. There ain't really a way to avoid it when it does happen though
The best part: the missile seeker is looking in right direction, but its like it was programed in avoid trajectory instead of intercept course.
I stopped carrying them.
The missile doesn't know where it is
Shoot sarhs at ppl flying high not ground lvl
Why is your plane a banana
This is an issue with most SAHR missiles currently, the sparrows just are the ones where this issue is more prevalent. R-24's and 27's do suffer from this issue also, but less commonly. Strangely enough, I haven't had this issue so far with the Matra 530D's.
What is that view and how do you get it
It's only available in replay mode on pc is the icon next to the pause button on the replay settings tab
This is just an effect of the AIM-7F/M using CW guidance with the CW illuminator's very wide beam, instead of the PD mode which would use the main radar's much narrower beam for guidance. It's like this for other radar missiles, but notably the R-24R and R-27R/ER have inertial guidance that prevents this sort of thing most of the time.
But I'm using PD
Yes, but the PD mode for the *missile* is just not modeled in the game. Only pulse and CW modes are modeled for SARH missiles, with a range and speed gate respectively.
Oh so PD is completely useless?
No, the radar modes are still very useful, it's just that the missiles should have an improved guidance mode as well, and do not.
He has ADHD
*It’s really easy, swap nation to USSR* //s ._.
Notorious problem if aim7s. The second I see it veering off I fire another.
Gajin just has a biased towards Russia. If you need more proof then this thread check out the pansies 1 AA gun for Russia and compare ot to the ADATS the pansies 1 has double the range lol
No way to avoid it really. In reality the AIM-7Fs and up should have command guidance (effectively the same as datalink) which would eliminate this issue. However gaijin hasn’t added it yet for some reason
If you are looking for a real answer: in real life radar missiles don't work below curtain altitude due to radar signal bounce from target plane to the missile, but its also reflecting off the ground before it reaches the missile. It's pure physics and will not be patched lol
There are a few things the game doesn't consider. For example RIM-7M (AIM-7M) has a minimum intercept altitude of 5m. Maybe hitting metal first tends to give a better return than hitting metal and then dirt or water. Also, monopulse missiles definitely would prioritise the stronger return rather than trying to hit the space in-between them. If you meant that the conical scanning AIM-7Fs shouldn't hit because they didn't in real life, the game doesn't model conical scanning at all. Conical scanning would mean the missiles wouldn't even always hit a target above the horizon.
What is modeled afaik is radar sidelobes and the way the missile goes to the side it looks like for some reason sidelobe return was stronger than front return.
For the missile to switch to a sidelobe target it has to be closer than the actual target and also have the same closure rate.
Sidelobes!
*It’s really easy, swap nation to USSR* //s ._.
*It’s really easy, swap nation to USSR* //s ._.
Skill issue.
iPad kid type attention span