do me one and record this(first and only battle of the F-14 BTW)
https://warthunder.com/en/tournament/replay/250213984233646054?public_key=UOWlwLc8M1wOUKRPSEy9
this is highly possible and broken, as an Iranian I like gaijin to give it R73 and raise it to 13.0
admittedly, the AIM-120B has very poor turn capability, and its almost definitely underperforming - which has been reported. It should be more lethal at far ranges, but saying it doesnt hit at 15km is silly.
Another bug report of F-14B(also, F-16C/Ds)
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/nWg2F9pymeEG
They need to rework F110 engine turkey feathers.
Since AIM-7 has no topic of its own on the new forum:
Bug report about changing the warhead of AIM-7M to the improved WAU-17 from the current WAU-10:
AIM-7F/M warhead and diameter:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/s9NTFiWXA3ls
5 Likes
You missed a very critical feature of the WAU-17/B warhead. The warhead is a controlled fragmentation warhead (ie: directional warhead) which should have improved performance over warheads of equal explosive filler. Afaik, the approximate claimed improvement for 1st gen directional warheads is 20-30% increase in “effectiveness”, though i’ll need to dig around for a specific source on that.
As mentioned, the WDU-29/B on the AIM-54C is also directional, which afaik has never been bug reported either.
6 Likes
I don’t think “controlled fragmentation” means aimable warhead.
I’m almost sure it does, but I guess you have an argument as its not explicitly stated in the patent, The patent does look incredibly similar to the warhead detailed below:
This is generally stated as the reason the AIM-54C went from the CR warhead to the “controlled fragmentation” warhead, and is where the “20-30% improved “effectiveness”” (in this case fragment velocity) claim comes from.
Of particular interest above, “a fixed weight warhead system can devote more relative weight for the case and less for the explosive and project more fragment mass in the direction of the target at a velocity equal to that produced by an axially initiated warhead” Which happens to also be what appears to have happened with the AIM-54C and its WDU-29/B having less filler material compared to the AIM-54A’s Mk82 CR warhead.
2 Likes
AIM-54C’s warhead has both more total mass and more filler mass, though currently both get fictional warheads in the game:
AIM-54A wrong explosive mass:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/g5POiwiwjKaB
AIm-54C wrong explosive mass:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/whO98q3Df7pA
AIM-54C (with WAU-21/B which I think is the best warhead it can get) should have a 186 lb warhead with 70.11 lb of filler, while AIM-54A with Mk 82 has a 133.5 lb warhead with 58 lb of filler.
1 Like
My mistake on that point. Everything else still seems to point towards “Controlled fragmentation warheads” being those detailed above though.
What you are talking about is called “Aimable Warhead”.
“Controlled Fragmentation” is just a fancy name for pre-cut grooves (rather than fill a pipe with explosives and wish for the best, i.e. “Natural Fragmentation”):
Spoiler
Tactical Missile Warheads J. Carleone 1993 Volume 155 Progress in Astronautics & Aeronautics
I’ve already posted the aimable warheads section here:
Maybe you’re right, I dont really care at this point, i dont make bug reports anymore, and you clearly have a bone to pick with the AIM-54’s anyways, since you only try to nerf one of the worst missiles ingame already while trying to get the best long range missile in-game buffed, i just figured id give you some extra info.
Its pretty pathetic that gaijins going to go ahead with the nerfs you want and is never going to buff the AIM-54’s despite the bug reports that have been acknowledged for years lmao.
1 Like
LOL
Don’t worry, dual plane maneuvering will come eventually
Warhead is currently fictional and has to be fixed … It has almost twice the filler
(apart from the fact that it’s acting like a fragmentation warhead rather than a continuous rod warhead, allowing it to cause damage at greater distances than it should)
They should also further reduce multipath height, but that’s a general balance thing for now and not specific to any given missile …
I’m gonna need a source on that since gaijin has directly said on multiple occasions that will never be the case.
2 Likes
It is possible Gaijin increased the filler size because of the missing directional warhead. Keep that in mind if the bug report won’t get to fruition.
Dual plane maneuvering is also kind of the least of the AIM-54C’s problems…
- It still has the 54A’s terrible seeker despite irl using a seeker that is 10-20 years newer
- It still doesnt have a reduced smoke motor, which makes it significantly more visible than it should be at lower alts
- It still has the EXTREMELY poorly optimized guidance profile of the 54A, despite using a completely new guidance section, which makes it laughably bad at long range despite that literally being where its supposed to be employed.
The 54C doesnt miss targets because it doesnt pull enough, it misses targets because its massively obvious that its been launched at a target, and its incredibly slow when it gets to the target in just about any launch scenario in WT, which gives said target a ton of time to just notch the terrible seeker. The only people that die to AIM-54’s are those that fly directly into them. Increasing the pull to 25g’s would be historical, but wouldnt really be of any help in anything but “dogfighting” scenarios, where the seeker is much too poor to be of any use anyways.
We know for a fact all of these points were improved irl on the 54C, with the goal of making the missile more capable vs small, fast, and agile targets, particularly at longer ranges, or vs large waves of closely clustered enemies/munitions and targets trying to defeat the missile through maneuvers such as notching, but none of these have been implemented in-game despite the 54C being in-game for over a year.
The general idea people had afaik was that gaijin was holding it back intentionally for “balance” reasons, which imo is a terrible thing to do, but whatever, I could live with that. But then the F-90 was added, and it was equal to or better in every single conceivable way to the AIM-54, and IMMEDIATELY got buffed due to Sudo_su’s work, and it became plain to see that gaijin or one of their devs just has some weird abject hatred of the AIM-54.
I highly doubt the AIM-54C is ever going to be buffed, and the F-14A IRIAF will forever remain the defacto best F-14 variant in-game simply due to how much better the F-90 is. Correcting the AIM-54’s warheads imo is fine, I enjoy accuracy and have stated so before, but I also know for a fact Sudo’s nerfs will come through within months at most and all the things the AIM-54C is underperforming in will never get fixed, and its laughable he pretends they will.
6 Likes
I would actually expect 54A’s seeker to be worse than it is now, 54C probably slightly better.
2 Likes
Yeah ive said this before, the 54A is likely overperforming, its seeker should more be like a quasi-SARH. Fixing this could let the F-14A be dropped in BR a tad and be more “fair” for planes around it. The 54C on the other hand is just missing effectively everything that makes it a 54C in-game, much like two-seaters are missing effectively every positive aspect of being 2 seaters, but retaining all the negatives. Its just gaijins missile devs punching bag at this point.
I also think the fakour 90 was a stupid addition and should never have been added. Gaijin was beyond dumb adding a missile from the mid-late 2010’s to the game when everyone else is using 90’s missile tech at best, (or i guess mid-2000’s in the case of the PL-12, but its still be constrained to 1990’s performance levels) and the fact its on an old airframe like the F-14A just makes it a balancing nightmare. I still stand by the statement that the IRIAF F-14A should be kicked up to 13.0 at minimum, likely more 13.3. If they buff the F-90 like Sudo wants them to, the plane should never ever be seen below 13.7.
5 Likes
There is no directional warhead.
AIM-54A uses a continuous rod warhead (which was eventually phased out due to poor performance) and AIM-54C uses a regular HE fragmentation warhead.
https://forum.warthunder.com/t/f-14-tomcat-history-performance-discussion/911/756
1 Like
Oh I know and agree, its just that I’ve seen people both here and on reddit go “dont worry dual plane is coming” which has been a flat out cope / lie for a long while now.
2 Likes
At the time they began saying this - dual plane came to surface launched missiles. None of them would be any good without it. Although we already ascertained that the Phoenix DOES NOT use bank to turn or dual plane exclusively. Much like the I-HAWK it maneuvers in + or x configuration as needed, and prioritizes one or the other depending on what the specific autopilot commands are. A high angle of attack would require X. Else, lower loads and AoA would not need a specific configuration, closes axis of symmetry in either + or x configuration is pointed towards target before pitching. It is then happenstance whether or not that is + or x.
I should also say, the I-HAWK is autopilot limited in G pull and AoA, the Phoenix is also likely limited and should pull the maximum overload of 25G’s in either + or x configuration if its’ anything like the I-HAWK.
1 Like