Nearly, kind of, perhaps and is underperforming all at the same time this dude says.
What is it? Speak clearly.
Can you please provide a source that the Aim54 is performing “nearly” at max range at altitude.
It’s sure not performing 40NM range at high altitude, in a super supersonic head on. Can you please provide a source or even your own gameplay that it is?
What makes you think they will implement a 40nm max range when the Aim-120 is fired subsonic??
I am just curious how you will implement it. Which I know you have no intention of doing anyway. This is purely for self-gratification and pats on the back.
You are doing a great job, Keep it up. I will leave you to it, let us know what you find.
You first, show me it can’t hit something at 40 nautical miles from subsonic high altitude as stated. Then, when you’re done doing that… show me a launch range diagram that indicates how far it SHOULD go.
@Ziggy1989 Dial it back, you’ve been warned before, there is no need here for any confrontation. It derails the discussion and dissuades other people from joining in.
Same conditions as the Harrier test I did, but the AIM-54A hit the target in just 63 seconds.
Here is a subsonic launch at high altitude where it quite easily hits the target at 40nm. Very comfortable launch range for the Phoenix right now.
That’s what all sources so far indicate is near max range for the missile in these conditions.
I’m not a developer, but my custom missile file is using public data and so far lines up with the theorized max range of the Sea Harrier at those maximum altitudes and speeds.
I went back and began to reread everything I said. I can’t figure out where you get the notion that I believe the missiles traveling distance was 50+ NM?
I’ve actually done testing in the past to ascertain the AIM-54A will follow a rear aspect target over a distance of approximately 55km before slowing down too much that it couldn’t continue chasing at 0.9 mach.
Someone else just showed such a long distance shot in live gameplay. The recently found data may buff the missile further, but we’re using public data. They’ll model it off what is available.
In that test it was less than 1/2 the missiles maximum launch range in those parameters… 40nm… as evidenced by the radar scope on the right. You can’t even see the maximum range bar on the distance setting I had selected.
The test was relevant, you claimed the AIM-54 couldn’t hit something at those ranges even when fired from a supersonic launch platform.
I’m still waiting on a source regarding “most launches aren’t supersonic”.
Also, you asked for my findings. You stated the Phoenix could not do 40NM in reference to the scenario I tested the AIM-120. So… I tested the AIM-54 and it absolutely can hit that target. It has much much much further than 40NM range in that scenario so yes… it can. You said it couldn’t.
Now if you think it’s not performing as it should, provide a source. If you don’t have one… then let’s stop that line of discussion until there is something to actually talk about.
No, nor did I directly assert this. I simply took the opposite opinion and would have liked to see some reliable information before I change my stance. Burden of proof doesn’t lay with me.
Without understanding aviation history or physics clearly demonstrated by my dear friend. Almost every single engagement in the history of aerial combat have been subsonic.
He thinks that because a missile is “BVR” you must go past the speed of sound just to sling it farther than the eye can see.
He has no idea of the difficulties, failure rates and inherent risk of launching a missile off a rail flying the speed of sound and forces applied to it especially while maneuvering. He has no comprehension that many missile SOP dictate that high Mach number launches are to be avoided.
Missiles are highly sensitive to the speed at which they are launched especially while maneuvering. GJ had removed physics related to this in order to maintain an arcade like ease of gaming.
He wants a document saying, “Things do not usually fly that well when rocketed from an airplane already going over the speed of sound.”
This actually kinda goes well with my theory of why grid fins like on the R-77 arent used on air to air missiles, nor are they used on the newest R-77 variants.
Grid fins suffer greatly from subsonic or transonic launches as their fins become airbrakes until around M1.3, if not a bit higher. This explains to some degree why a ground launched R-77 has a max range of 12km while a comparably sized AIM-7M attains around 26km ground launched.
Its a bit idiotic to design a missile with a substantial aerodynamic downside in the transonic range if missiles are often shot in subsonic/transonic conditions.
Now we just have to hope gaijin will actually model this design issue, though I’m not holding my breath…
I would say its a mix, here you can see the firing envelopes for Skyflash SuperTEMP, there is a mix of all firing types.
I don’t think you can say they’re mostly subsonic launches, performance at high supersonic speeds for BVR combat was absolutely something that is tested for as are all regimes of flight. To say its “mostly subsonic” isn’t correct at all. Altitude seems to play more of a role on if a launch from the launching fighter is super or subsonic.
Target and Fighter subsonic(Pink)
Target and Fighter supersonic (Yellow)
Target supersonic and Fighter subsonic (Blue)
Mostly semantics at this point, all regimes of flight are tested, be that the target or fighter being super or subsonic. For the maximum range supersonic will always be king.
If lattice fins were so much better, every other nations would be using them, but they arent… Even the russians arent. The only air to air missiles with lattice fins are the R-77 and R-77-1.
Missiles also dont spend most of their time at high supersonic speeds, which is defined by NASA as 3 < M < 5, though I have seen some documents state the drag advantage of lattice fins could be as low as M2.5. The vast majority of a missiles flight is spent at speeds below high supersonic speeds, and kneecapping your missile in subsonic/transonic launches doesn’t help.
Think about it this way. A surface launched R-77 has the same max range of 12km as the IRIS-T SLS, and less than half the range of its closest analogue in terms of dimensions (AIM-7M). Theres clearly an extreme price to pay in the transonic regime to using lattice fins, and honestly, considering this, id be surprised if the R-77 can even achieve high supersonic speeds for any noticeable length of time if launched at any subsonic/transonic speeds. At all other speeds, the drag of lattice fins and planar fins are roughly equivalent.
