81,400ft being maximum effective altitude for 54A?
Such as reported on fighter jets, the flight ceiling of F-15 is somewhere around 60-65k feet, yet the F-15 can reach higher altitudes for short durations of time. The record was 98k feet.
That’s certainly possible, but there are no aerodynamic changes between the A and C variant, so I can’t imagine why they would be different.
Doesn’t state maximum effective altitude. We also know the speed, range, and weights are all wrong as well.
We also know that the motors have a similar (ISP or delta V?) from way earlier in this thread, right?
So they should both have relatively similar top speeds and max ranges.
Previous report indicated the AIM-54 also to be the most maneuverable missile. It was the baseline 54A which does not hold true. It appears that there are unmentioned contexts to their claims, the aim-54A can be situationally more maneuverable than counterparts at the time and the 54A can situationally reach heights that are (obviously) above the flight ceiling.
Effective altitudes for such missiles do exist, just as altitudes that they can reach but not be effective at.
I still agree to take the report not at face value mainly due to lack of sources.
Additionally forecast international has high profile clients such as boeing raytheon bae systems general dynamics and so on. It is not a randomly created blogspot site.
Yes, the Mk60 is analogous to the Mk47 mod 0… the Mk47 mod 1 having the speculatory performance and reduced smoke propellant. There should be little difference in performance between all of these motors.
It should be discarded as primary information refutes the information shown. It’s not a good source period.
Forecast international = Janes which Gaijin simply does not use as a source because of how unreliable (and most of the time outright wrong) their information is. It cannot be used for a report.
What primary sources did they add? Id like to view it.
‘‘A major step in the company’s growth was taken in 1989, when Forecast International acquired the assets of DMS Inc. from its main competitor, Jane’s Information Group’’
‘‘Acquired by GovExec in January 2022, FI remains the leader in market intelligence and industry forecasting, and its insight is frequently solicited by various media outlets.’’
How can we say that the company operates under janes group with that context?
1 Like
Outsider’s view of the AWG-9 and documentation from the missiles’ motor manufacturer.
I didn’t say that, did I? I simply said that Forecast international is equal to Janes in regards to sourcing.
He asked politely geez. Calm down, tiger.
This appears inaccurate. FI has independent editorial teams. Additionally, other reliable sources have also cited work of FI like us department of defense which further validates my point. And us departmentOfD is not the only one in that regard. If a primary source considers this source reliable enough to be cited, you have a conflict between a multiple amount of primary sources.
1 Like
Developers don’t like Forecast International.
1 Like
Interesting. I am curious why. I am not familiar with FI.
Wow, they have a think tank and consulting service.
I do feel like they are trying to sell me something at each page I go to. I think I see how they can be problematic.
I can tell. Developers should also not like any primary sources that cite forecast international then (but this does not happen as instead of following the common logic of deeming a reliability of a source, private companies rather follow their own opinions).
If a widely recognized authority on the field cites such source while also being used as a primary source, it can easily be deemed for the authority to consider this source as reliable.
Larger primary sources often have more reputation on the field anyway, especially govermental bodies. Govermental bodies also have a presumption of responsibility.
Anyway, i would understand why a private company wants to believe a specific primary source in one thing but not in another thing. Personal beliefs often go above and beyond the scope of reasonability, even legality. Another example of such non sense from gaijin is when they made their own opinion of owning a specific website, then losing in court. Such non sense opinions do exist always.
Anyway back on the topic of phoenixes, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics already confirmed FI materials on relevance mentioned items to be correct. You can also check paper 2005-0700 from AIAA and phoenix (-) final propulsion delivery from hercules inc
After considering those sources, there is nothing left that can be deemed irrefutable
1 Like
DoD also cites completely erroneous sources constantly. In fact, they do so more often than not. That furthers my point, if data is shown to be unreliable… discard it. In this case, and as is most often the case with FI or Janes… they’re WRONG.
1 Like
Above mentioned sources already confirmed dataset to be correct. Can you consider something a primary source if they cite unreliable sources? This is not only DOD citing them.
1 Like
The data isn’t correct, though. It’s been proven wrong long ago, no need to continue posting nonsense we know isn’t true. The Forecast International data for AIM-54 is just wrong. Period.
1 Like
Fascinating you want to chime in only to rail and discourage his research.
If it’s been proven wrong before, it should be easy for you to show him. Do him the favor and steer him right if the data is wrong.
Telling a user his post are nonsense and disregarding his research is not community building and is literally used as an example in our guidelines.
Constantly telling a user a source is invalid but refusing to review the content with him is backwards. You have all the time in the world to tell people they are wrong and discourage them from seeking out a truth. But no time to help them out.
All you do is lurk around the forum for any activity to discourage users from conducting their own research and discussing with others on how to improve the game. You only seek these opportunities to talk about yourself and boast how you supposedly already know it all when we all know you understand very little.
If you know the data he is referring to is incorrect. Show him where and why. You absolutely have nothing else to do. Show him.
2 Likes
If a source is citing a secondary / tertiary source like Forecast International then it is probably not a primary source.
3 Likes
Alright you did not check the other sources added. Aren’t we being stubborn here claiming all data by X is wrong even when crosschecked against top rs scholars?
2 Likes
Us department of defense, european commission, WB, United nations…
3 Likes