The F-14A wasnt powercreep at its introduction. It frankly baffles me ppl get that whole part of WT history so badly wrong.
The F-14A at launch was added at a time when the MiG-23MLD and J-7E had utterly ruined top tier air for months. The MLD in particular had been absolutely crushing all balance in air RB for about 8 months when the F-14A was added, and the J-7E had gotten the PL-5B “fix” which made it borderline god tier when matched to its FM, the F-14A was added as a balancing factors to those 2 nightmares.
As for its timing, I agree it was added to match Top Gun Maverick, but I disagree it was rushed. TGM was famously delayed MULTIPLE times. One of the specific dates was November 19th 2021.
This date is important as it roughly coincides with the release of the MiG-23MLD (Oct 28th), which went on to absolutely dominate top tier for 8 months with literally no answer from the US side until the F-14A. The F-14A was most likely supposed to be released alongside the MLD, but was delayed alongside TGM.
Regarding the F-14B though. It being added was just beyond stupid. Gaijins stated reason was the US needed a competant mixed attacker, but they;
Refused to add any of the 3 TGP’s and dozens of different PGM’s to the F-4E
Refused to add the F-111
Refused to add a TT A-6E
The addition of the F-14B was lazy and idiotic. There was no reason to add it when they did, and they butchered the modelling of not only its weapons (the 7M is still nerfed into the ground as is the 54C) but the AN/AXX-1 TCS. Adding the F-14B (a notoriously poor aircraft in the ground attack role) for the role of TGP equipped ground attacker was just stupid, and the US TT could’ve gotten half a dozen different aircrafts instead.
As for if you’re arguing the 54C is nerfed into the ground for balance, the 54C is one of the worst missiles, if not flat out the worst missile you’ll find at top tier, and the R-27ER, which has been downright oppressive since its addition compared to all other radar missiles in-game, handedly beats it in almost all scenarios you’d see in WT currently.
This is also kind of wildly off topic for an AIM-120 discussion…
Yeah I don’t really, idk if its X degrees relative to missile or relative to target
Spoiler
Target = 990 mph, 50k feet
Missile travels 72.5nm
Target travels 37.5nm
72.5+37.5 = launch range of 110nm
Since its a target drone I assume it maintains course and speed
Target drone covers 43.15 standard miles from launch to impact, traveling at 990mph (.275 miles per second). That gives a time of (43.15 miles / .275 miles per second) 156.9 seconds from launch to impact. Assuming I didn’t fuck my math, that’s almost the missile’s known battery life of 160s, thus likely pretty close to the maximum range (Since it’s the longest range shot known to have been taken)
That was a random engagement, not theoretical max range as far as I am aware. The AIM-54 should be able to hit fighter sized targets from 100 nautical miles launch distance in similar or higher launch speed scenarios.
I believe it climbs at “X” angle until the seeker is tracking target with “Y” angle elevation at which point it maintains that degree until it comes in to intercept if I understand it correctly. It’s kind of rudimentary as I stated, but it isn’t terrible and serves the purpose quite well in-game.
The current AIM-54 seen in-game has downright atrocious dV’s btw. Barely eaks above M4.0 from a M2.0 launch at 12000m attitude with the whole motor burn, and down at 6000m M1.0 launch its barely reaches above M2.0 or 3.0 iirc.
From this test.
dV in the M2.0 12000m case was ~716m/s
dV in the M1.0 9000m launch was ~611m/s
True, its definitely not perfect but that’s the most aggressive known loft, and its pretty ideal conditions (High altitude mach 1.5 launching and target craft) The only way to really know is from docs or a full-on fluid simulation but I don’t have those resources.
It could probably go maybe 10nm further than that under truly ideal conditions, but again no docs so we can’t prove it. Also everything I’ve seen states its battery life is >160 seconds so who knows it might be way better than even that.
Is there a condition where it hits mach 5? I’ve always been under the impression that the ‘max mach’ stat was just for stat card but that testing seems to imply otherwise.
Should be capable of mach 3 at sea level in terms of top speed, and mach 6.1 at higher altitudes.
In fact, the performance of the motor is almost as it should be (correct thrust)… but it does not add the additional ~15% thrust Gaijin should add to simulate the reduction in drag during missile burn time. Further, the drag on the missile is too high because it’s incapable of reaching the top speeds it should reach at low and medium altitudes let alone at high alts.
In-game it has ~96,700 lb-sec, should be a bit closer to 99,000 lb-sec.
Should be mach 6.1
We can probably move this to the AIM-54 thread though lol…
You never heard of maximum effective range? What about weapon employment zone?
Yes, there is a max range and a max effective range in every ballistic weapon system that was ever devised by man.
One example is that many missiles’ motors can take it much farther than that of the launching aircrafts radar can even guide it. Therefore, technically the missile has a maximum range, but its effectiveness is limited by many factors such as the example provided.
Another example is aircraft range. Just because an aircraft has a maximum range does not mean it’s combat effective that entire range. Range means just as far as the aircraft can fly before falling out of the sky. What matters is called Combat Radius. Same principle.
A thing to consider is that missiles don’t start from zero velocity like the balls in those simulations. Also air resistance by altitude and velocity is to be considered.
I would say that a lofting trajectory is still desirable, even in a look-down, close range scenario.
The objective is to have a reasonably high Pk with the lowest Time to Target(so the target can’t react, and limits penetration depth), so lofting isn’t always ideal if you don’t need to store the energy for a long range intercept, outside of it being a design decision to confer top attack characteristics to the warhead / penetrator for effect on the target to bypass defenses (e.g. Radar / RWR search volume, etc.) or to ensure functionality (e.g. AGM-45 / -78 / -88, etc.).
No, but when replicating the same exact scenario at the same exact distances and starting speeds it might be optimal for the missile to take a faster path. Especially when target is well within the no-escape-zone.
The new missile tracking camera that was added with the latest update is very nice.
Am I remembering wrong, or is the missile POV distance to target changed to be relative to the missile now? I swear when looking through the missile tracking camera the distance to target was always shown as distance from the plane not the missile. In the above video you can see the aircraft radar distance in addition.
I’ve never heard of maximum effective range specifically, though there are terms like it. Though “maximum effective range” is more of an oxymoron than anything.
As for “maximum possible range”, there are many other names for it too, though I cannot think of any legitimate scene where it has been used.
Any ARH missile’s range isn’t defined by its aircraft’s radar performance, but it’s A pole and eventual extended flight range.
Combat range / radius has nothing to do with this topic, as that’s dependent on dozens of other factors.
Not once do I remember fuel, AEW, or accompanying suites being mentioned in this thread.
The camera has always existed, and I remember it fondly in 1.47 when bombing was a rage.
They have changed it so target range is based on the camera’s position, instead of aircraft or missile. Before, a second view position was created but it would still relay distance based off of the primary position, being your vehicle.
Now it’s based on the missile, making effects now render (still no player vehicles, sadly) based on missile position.
The side effect to this change is that the game, and all of its sounds, now terminate any player views whenever tabbed out.
This causes the turret to rotate to a default position, sounds to disconnect from the vehicle, and if streaming / recording, the entire game freezes whenever it is no in focus.
