LOL
Seems to show the AIM-54 is underperforming in total thrust and initial acceleration.
3 Likes
is that a classified
-.- no it proves the U.S AIM 54 is weak and other stuff
It’s been released under FOIA; the download link is to the official US navy website and it has various redactions.
1 Like
æ i got scared when i saw smin pinged
The missile hit a target at 50.000ft from 110 N miles, but still reached a height of 103,000ft that is the best any missile has ever done. In the past or currently.
The USAF claim the AMRAAM bested it recently:
Plus there are probably a few missiles with longer range that haven’t had details released yet (Meteor, etc.)
Thats almost 204km for all you us-non US ppl reading this btw
2 Likes
“non-us ppl”
The sources used to create that document are not the most credible ever shared on this forum, some of them Gaijin has denied outright in reports in the past in light of better information. This is now also going to be the case with this document, since it isn’t wholly accurate and better sources exist for nearly all relevant information in the document.
Information has been forwarded from primary sources with sufficient information to now properly and accurately model the missile, even more accurately regarding kinematics and maneuvering performance than DCS.
- The AIM-54A maximum overload will be increased to 20.4-22G
- Maximum speed increased to mach 6 (for a mach 2.5 launch)
- Thrust is relatively close already but they need to add an additional amount to account for the lack of them modeling a reduction in drag during motor burn time.
The weight of the missile stated in the document is incorrect, it is 984 pounds total and burnout weight is 610 pounds. It was close, but not accurate.
There are a number of other discrepancies, though I can’t be bothered to write an essay on it right now.
the source is a primary source . it was published to as a :
and approved by hire staff of the academy.
1 Like
It’s not a primary source. The information stated is incorrect in several areas. As I mentioned, better (real) primary sources have been forwarded.
They pulled information from the sources shown above, not from primary sources.
and it has other sources : can you tell me , where does it gets this from :
if it is probably used from other sources , surely data must be the same.
It’s not too bad, but the author uses a lot of creative rounding at times
(Irrc they even mention the pre and post burn mass discrepancies across their sources in the paper)
It states clearly it does not use classified sources, and as far as I can see it clearly states where it got certain information from;
At the bottom of the page in question it states the information came from the F-14 NATOPS which actually has incorrect information on the missile. They note these incongruities on page 60.
remember , classified is not :
1- restricted
2- confidential
it is says that it has 1 or 2
but secrets are kept away
Precisely, and MOST of the information given is dubious, as stated even by the author. Also, this redacted copy of the document is quite old. The document was given in it’s entirety from a more recent FOIA iirc but I cannot find it currently.
Anyhow, documents that are more reliable and do not state erroneous information have been presented as well which contradict the dubious claims in this document and as such the missile will be corrected I presume by next major patch or so.