They replaced nearly everything because it was all deprecated at that point. The APG 71 was a massive improvement by all regards. It has higher power output and replaced just about everything but the antenna. The fact that it shares parts with the F-15’s updated radar is meaningless outside of logistics reasons. It was a massive upgrade. They went from the worlds first production microprocessor to a much more mature fully digital system.
I worked with the tech moderators quite a bit before the devs decided they didn’t want to “fix” the plane or the missile and moved on.
Yet the F-14’s would dominate the F-4 pilots if anyone with more than two brain cells flew them.
This has never been the case, while it is convenient for situations you shouldn’t be in, it is not necessary at all. The MiG-23M is a great example where having no ACM is not a serious drawback.
Though I would say even the MiG-23M makes the Phantoms look horrid and honestly it would be undertiered if not for the serious BR compression issue that this game has.
@Gunjob Is it possible to clarify on this? Shouldn’t the missile be modeled at least as SARH + IOG + ARH or SARH + IOG + DL + ARH similar to the R27ER/AIM-7P?
@ItzMikeyzWRLD-psn is there any info on the fatter missile available anywhere? IT might be better option (at least the seeker) than aim9p and keep with the Iranian theme of the F14AM
The problem appears to be that you’re report says:
The AIM-54A uses a SARH seeker for long range target guidance, not Datalink. Only the AIM-54C recieved datalink
The Devs treated your report as a request to remove datalink from the missile, which they rejected as the missile in their view had datalink.
A report asking for SARH guidance to be added in addition to datalink (essentially reducing/ removing the impact of IOG drift) would probably work better. Though you might want to check with a tech mod what the best way to proceed is.
We dont have any SARH+ARH mechanics modelled to my knowledge. It’s only either or. You can make a suggest for it to be changed at a minimum, provided your theory holds up after you’ve submitted it. I’ve not really looked into the issue myself.
I finally get some few days of vacation from military academy, and returned to discussion :)
Currently in the game, the missile goes active when the distance to the target reaches 16km. However, in real life, the missile should go active when the time to hit on the TID screen reaches 16 seconds.
However, the documents what I used is still mention about “normal” target size, not “small” and “large” targets.
If -1A is available, this issue could be resolved immediately, as it would specify the conditions under which the missile becomes active when set to “small” or “large” target sizes. Unfortunately, although the -1A manual has been declassified, it remains subject to export controls.
The AIM-54 does not use SARH guidance. While SARH typically requires direct radar illumination, this is not the case here.
In the case of the AIM-54, the AWG-9 radar transmits a waveform while scanning in TWS mode, and the missile receives the waveform reflected from the target within a very short time (50 ms) to perform Doppler filtering and angle tracking. Even in this situation, important information such as the turn-on synchronization signal, target velocity data, and the active transfer command is received through the data link.
As can be seen from the above, this guidance method is more similar to a data link than to SARH, and it has been proven that the missile is using a data link. Therefore, that report has concluded incorrectly.
The conversation about SARH just reminded me, in reality, when firing an AIM-54 with an PD-STT or P-STT lock, the missile should enter SARH mode and never go active.
Not sure, but Pulse and Pulse-Doppler definitely seem to have some sort of differing mechanization. Considering that only the Pulse mode is denoted as “(Active)”, and lacks a listed maximum range
(likely limited by the radar’s range, not kinematically considering PD-STT & TWS modes exceed the specified 49 Nmi limit for a 5m^2 target).
Although I do have some materials, I have requested additional materials from the library, as previously mentioned by @MiG_23M. I hope to receive a positive response soon.
There is burnout test data for the Mk.47 and Mk.60 motors.
As we know, thrust increases when a rocket motor burns at high temperatures, and this data was obtained from burnout tests conducted under extreme conditions (-54°C and 71°C).
For the Mk.47 motor, the average thrust at 71°C was 14,995 N, and the maximum thrust was 17,779 N. In other words, the 17,792 N figure from the 1984 Weapons File cannot be applied to the Mk.47 motor. The Mk.47 motor can only achieve that figure under extreme temperatures.
For the Mk.60 motor, the average thrust at 71°C was 18,118 N, and the maximum thrust was 21,467 N.
The only possibility worth considering is that the 1984 Weapons File used values for the Mk.60 motor, but this is also unlikely. The most probable explanation is that the figure is incorrect.
No, since the conclusion is incorrect, there is no need to write any report. This feature is identical to DataLink.
